Science Assumes Mind-Independent Reality

[Flannel Jesus]

Yes, science does assume a mind-independent referent outside the human mind, but since it is an inherent ASSUMPTION, it can NEVER be real at all [especially in this case].

Yes the assumed referent can be real, just unknowable. You fail at basic logic.

The assumption that assumptions can't be real is itself an assumption, and thus can't be real...

[Skepdick]

Yes the assumed referent can be real, just unknowable. You fail at basic logic.

So how do you know that the referent is real?

[Atla]

Yes the assumed referent can be real, just unknowable. You fail at basic logic.

So how do you know that the referent is real?

I don't. But, according to the "science-FSK", the view that there is a real external world makes a lot more sense than the view that there isn't one.

[Skepdick]

Yes the assumed referent can be real, just unknowable. You fail at basic logic.

So how do you know that the referent is real?

I don't.

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

But, according to the "science-FSK", the view that there is a real external world makes a lot more sense than the view that there isn't one.

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

[Atla]

So how do you know that the referent is real?

I don't.

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

But, according to the "science-FSK", the view that there is a real external world makes a lot more sense than the view that there isn't one.

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

[Iwannaplato]

Can you clarify what's so "utterly ridiculous" about what I siad?

Yes, you said this:

The generality of trustworthiness of memory erorrs is immaterial if any particular memory error has the potential to negate any given conclusion.

But I see you have since edited it. It contained too many errors.

You seem to be assuming something about his motivation for the edit. Perhaps he was inspired by a stroke of insight or compulsion. But in any case since you assumed he was correcting error
he could not possibly have been correcting errors.
It's a kind of retroactive causation.

[Iwannaplato]

Yes, science does assume a mind-independent referent outside the human mind, but since it is an inherent ASSUMPTION, it can NEVER be real at all [especially in this case].

Yes the assumed referent can be real, just unknowable. You fail at basic logic.

The assumption that assumptions can't be real is itself an assumption, and thus can't be real...

You seem to be assuming that his experiences follow the same rules as your experiences. Therefore you can both be affected by the same rules.
We all live in individual bubbles of different metaphysical rules.

[Harbal]

Can you clarify what's so "utterly ridiculous" about what I siad?

Yes, you said this:

The generality of trustworthiness of memory erorrs is immaterial if any particular memory error has the potential to negate any given conclusion.

But I see you have since edited it. It contained too many errors.

You seem to be assuming something about his motivation for the edit.

No, I imagine it was a straight forward mistake, like most of us make from time to time. But he takes himself far too seriously to laugh such things off.

[Iwannaplato]

No, I imagine it was a straight forward mistake, like most of us make from time to time. But he takes himself far too seriously to laugh such things off.

We make mistakes, Harbal. For example: we don't have all beliefs.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Many of the above are strawman[s] to the OP.

I wrote in the OP:
"Here is reference where Science merely assumes the existence of a mind-independent external world, i.e. external objective reality which is unprovable by Science itself'; ..."

Assumptions be can of the following;

• 1. Proven scientific facts
  2. Provable scientific facts - empirically possible
  3. Unprovable by science
  4. Fictions
  5. Contradictions
  6. Whatever that can be thought

If I assumed [in a thesis] there are human-like aliens in another planet 10 light years away, this is verifiable, justifiable and provable by science. Since the variables are all empirical, it is a matter of providing the empirical evidences for science to verify, justify and prove whether it is scientifically real via a human-based scientific FSK.

As such whatever the thesis in confirmed, it is limited by the assumption, but it is nevertheless possible to be real conditionally.

But in the case of Science, esp. Newtonian and Einsteinian Physics, science assumes
the existence of a mind-independent external world.
Science itself admit this external objective reality is unprovable by science, so, it has to be assumed. [note unprovable to be emphasized]

Philosophical realists insist, while it is unprovable by science and unknowable by science, this assumed mind-independent external world is nevertheless REAL!

The point is
'what is REAL' is conditioned to a human-based FSR-FSK of which the human scientific FSR-FSK enable the most-realistic* emergence and realization of reality.

"What is real" on a FSR-FSK basis comes degrees depending on the credibility, reliability and objectivity of the specific FRR-FSK. e.g. the scientific-FSK @ 99/100 [most real]; the p-realist FSK @ 10/100, the theistic FSK @ .1/100.

• 1. what is most real via FSR-FSK is human-based,
  2. Human-based involved humans, body, brain and mind
  it follows deductively,
  3. what is most real is conditioned upon humans, body, brain and mind

As such, what is most real CANNOT be unconditioned upon humans, body, brain and mind, i.e.
thus what is most real CANNOT be CANNOT be mind-independent.

Philosophical realism claims that reality and things are mind-independent.
Therefore philosophical realist is not realistic [most real].

Philosophical realists insist, while the assumed mind-independent external world even if unprovable by science and unknowable by science, this assumed mind-independent external world is nevertheless REAL!

On the contrary, as demonstrated above, the assumed mind-independent external world even if unprovable by science and unknowable by science, CANNOT and is impossible to be REAL [most FSK-ed real].

[Atla]

Philosophical realists insist, while the assumed mind-independent external world even if unprovable by science and unknowable by science, this assumed mind-independent external world is nevertheless REAL!

Some p-realists do, some don't. How dense can someone get? Any p-realist with more than 2 braincells will know that humans can't have absolute certainty.

[Skepdick]

I don't.

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

But, according to the "science-FSK", the view that there is a real external world makes a lot more sense than the view that there isn't one.

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?

[Flannel Jesus]

On the contrary, as demonstrated above, the assumed mind-independent external world even if unprovable by science and unknowable by science, CANNOT and is impossible to be REAL [most FSK-ed real].

You've just repeated your argument again, what makes you think it would be more compelling the second time than it was the first time?

And it's a huge logical leap to go from "science cannot prove it" to "it's impossible to be real". It's a big leap to go from "it's an assumption" to "it's impossible to be real". These absurd leaps on logic are why your op is getting roasted.

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

[Iwannaplato]

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

And I would add. See, if there are, perhaps, some missing steps in the argument. Then fill those in.

[FlashDangerpants]

• 1. what is most real via FSR-FSK is human-based,
  2. Human-based involved humans, body, brain and mind
  it follows deductively,
  3. what is most real is conditioned upon humans, body, brain and mind

That probably does not follow deductively, although given the ratio of meaningful content to gibberish it's hard to say for certain.