Philosophy Now Forum

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 12:01 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 11:18 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 11:15 am You mean me as opposed to you. Each of us independantly?
Is that what you mean?
Or am I somehow interdependant on a moron like you?

You've been interacting with this moron for 2 days.

How independent does this seem to you? It sure seems inter-dependent to me!

If you were independent you would have shut up.

FIne. You are back on ignore.
Case closed

Q.E.D inter-dependent.

An independent person would've just ignored me. Without telling me that they are going to ignore me.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 12:25 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 12:01 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 11:18 am
You've been interacting with this moron for 2 days.

How independent does this seem to you? It sure seems inter-dependent to me!

If you were independent you would have shut up.

FIne. You are back on ignore.
Case closed

Q.E.D inter-dependent.

An independent person would've just ignored me. Without telling me that they are going to ignore me.

lmfao

I find it extremely strange (moreover contradictory) that those that purport to value "philosophy" love of wisdom, choose to shut off incoming data\information.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 1:02 pm lmfao

I find it extremely strange (moreover contradictory) that those that purport to value "philosophy" love of wisdom, choose to shut off incoming datainformation.

The point of beating idiots at their own game using their own rules is so that they abandon the rules.

Is everything in the Universe dependent upon everything else - absolutely it is
Things may appear to be independent of each other but in reality this is not true

For example every object in the observable Universe exerts a gravitational force upon every other object in it too
I know that you are talking about human beings rather than objects but the principle is the same - exactly the same

Empty space is not actually empty and absolute vacuums are defined by their dimension so no separation exits in either scenario
The observable Universe has been in a continuous state of existence for the last I4 billion years so there are no gaps in reality

Ergo every member of the forum is therefore connected to every other member of the forum
We all came from stardust and have a common biological ancestry too - by which I mean four billion year old bacteria rather than apes
So whether you love everyone or hate everyone here or something in between those two extremes you are all absolutely inter connected

Now group hug anyone ?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 21, 2021 5:46 am Is everything in the Universe dependent upon everything else - absolutely it is
Things may appear to be independent of each other but in reality this is not true

For example every object in the observable Universe exerts a gravitational force upon every other object in it too
I know that you are talking about human beings rather than objects but the principle is the same - exactly the same

Empty space is not actually empty and absolute vacuums are defined by their dimension so no separation exits in either scenario
The observable Universe has been in a continuous state of existence for the last I4 billion years so there are no gaps in reality

Ergo every member of the forum is therefore connected to every other member of the forum
We all came from stardust and have a common biological ancestry too - by which I mean four billion year old bacteria rather than apes
So whether you love everyone or hate everyone here or something in between those two extremes you are all absolutely inter connected

So group hug anyone ?

Your above is correct.
There is no absolute determination [no first Turtle] but since the Big Bang everything is deterministically interconnected to the present and will be in the future.

The problem with Philosophical Realists and critical realists like Conde Lucanor and his likes is they are habitualized to the obvious which is the necessary evolutionary default to realize, cognize and view things as independent and external from oneself.
This focus in the external is very critical to facilitate survival, i.e. to look for parents [who are external, the mother tits are external] they are dependent on, then subsequently for food externally and be aware of threats, spouse externally and enemies from the external.

Since the above things independent from oneself and sense of externality facilitated survival, the sense of externality is thus adaptive and is a default programmed within our DNA.

So it is very 'normal' for the Philosophical Realists and critical realists to have and dogmatically cling to the view that reality and things are absolutely independent of the human conditions which is part and parcel of reality now and from the beginning.

For the Philosophical Realists and critical realists to be presented with a different view of non-independence will trigger a terrible cognitive dissonance in them. I have stated many times, the debate between realists and anti-realists is more of a psychological issue than an epistemological one.
This is the reason why Philosophical, critical and other realists will fight tooth and nail to cling to their realism, i.e. things exist absolutely independent of the human conditions. This is reflected in the number of pages in this thread.

The anti-realists [like you (on this point), me and others] on the other hand via a deeper and wider reflection reality and driven to 'know thyself' [or other means] is able to free themselves from the habitualized bondage to "realism"* and view reality as it is, i.e. things and humans cannot be absolute independent from reality-as-it-is or all-there-is.
* realism is just a hijacked term to represent reality, but real_ism itself is never realistic.

Btw, it is still a necessity to view things as external to the human self in one perspective but such a view should not be clung dogmatically as in my way or the highway.
As an anti-realist I will accept both views, i.e. things are independent in one perspective while non-independent in another perspective in accordance to the optimality of the contexts [well-being etc.] used.

Group hug?? Nah, not until the philosophical realists in a critical mass are freed from their bondage to externality.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am I never assert that the confidence that Science is the most credible framework is based on pure faith.
What I implied that your insistence that scientific facts represent what is real to you [as a critical realist] is based on pure faith, since you are not the one who is doing the experiments, tests, etc. to arrive at the conclusion of those scientific fact.

You're truly lost in space, having no logical compass. Let's do this with apples and oranges to see if you can finally get it:

"The lay-person accepts scientific facts based purely on faith" (actual quote from VA).
Veritas Aequitas is a lay-person
Therefore, Veritas Aequitas accepts scientific facts based purely on faith.

You have confirmed this view several times:

You are just applying 'faith' in believing what the scientists tell you.
[...]for us who are not doing the real scientific tests and inferencing, one has to rely on faith that scientific truths are reliable.

And so, my statement "you actually don't find the scientific framework credible" is confirmed by your own words. It might be that you claim faith is a valid criterion for credibility, but that would be absolutely foolish.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am I have done VERY extensive research on what is philosophy and its essence by reviewing and extracting from the context ‘philosophy’ is used within Western, Eastern and in every domain.

I wouldn't have any faith in your claim that you have done "VERY extensive research on what is philosophy". It certainly doesn't show anywhere.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am You yourself admit you are speculating; that in the ultimate sense can possibly be wrong with what is real. Note the ultimate sense not conventional sense.
You are speculating more than what Science is confirming based on observations and scientific facts are merely polished conjectures.

Your lack of comprehension and your inability to think clearly don't allow you to notice the difference between the transitive and intransitive uses of the verb to speculate, so you say these ridiculous statements. I don't need to speculate (to conjecture without knowing the complete facts) on the factual reality of things because there are reliable methods of independently verifying their objective reality, which is more than simple consensus among scientists.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am Meanwhile my anti-realism [Kantian+] accept what Science concludes and I do not speculate like you do. Because Scientific facts are merely polished conjectures, my anti-realism uses critical philosophy to monitor the credibility scientific facts plus imputing moral elements and other positive elements.

Your anti-realism does not accept science because science is realistic. Thomson discovers the electron, scientists tell us it is a fundamental particle of what the world is made of, and then you say electrons never really existed and they are only conjectures within a framework. That's not even close to accepting what science concludes. For arguing against the inherent realism of science you then go on in a philosophical, purely conjectural journey without much internal coherence.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am

Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sun Jul 18, 2021 3:27 pm Not so fast. You have been caught, I have actually quoted you saying what you're declaring now as "none of the above". But that's fine, now I have you on record denying that what is real emerges from or is grounded on human conditions. Then you are forcing yourself to acknowledge that there isn't a necessary relationship between what is real and human conditions, in other words, you're denying epistemic correlationism, which was the position you have been wanting to advance all along.

What are you talking about?
Read my point again, i.e.
As stated earlier, I have always insisted C is real as an emergent and cannot be independent of human conditions.
I don’t get your point?

You pretend to be unaware of the fact that you are denying saying exactly what you end up repeating in your denial. It is like saying: "I never claimed Nixon was real and a president, I always insisted Nixon was real and a president". I quoted you saying that what is real (C) is grounded on human conditions, but you denied you meant "grounding". I then rephrased to: what is real (C) is emergent from human conditions, and you reply: no, C is real as an emergent, dependent of human conditions. If you are going to play with words to escape from your blatant contradictions, at least don't make it look so grossly unsophisticated.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am ‘Grounding’ is merely talking about the cause[s] of effects.
There is no issue with discussing about cause [ground] and effects but there is a limit to the question of ‘ground’ when the implications lead to an infinite regress or a final cause. This is where I will denial the question of ‘grounding’.
What is the problem with this?

As with so many other subjects, you're ignorant of what you're talking about this time. Here, take a look and learn something new:

Metaphysical Grounding

Grounding is a topic in metaphysics. Consider an ordinary physical object, such as a table, and the atoms it is made of. Without the atoms, the table would not exist. The table's existence depends on the existence of the atoms. This kind of dependence is called "grounding" to distinguish it from other kinds of dependence, such as the dependence of an effect on its cause. It is sometimes called metaphysical or ontological dependence.

Grounding can be characterized as a relation between a ground and a grounded entity. The ground exists on a more fundamental level than the grounded entity, in the sense that the grounded entity depends for its existence or its properties on its ground.

A distinction is typically made between grounding relations and other dependence relations, such as causation[1] or realization. Grounding is often considered to be a form of non-causal determination or priority.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am I have read my statement.
Produce my exact statement I made and show why you think I was caught lying.
I stated there were “no ‘electrons-in-[themselves] [sic]’ before Thomson and even after Thomson. There are only electrons [not in themselves] as confirmed from the scientific framework.

I asked you a specific question and you replied with several statements: A, B, and C. Then I presented A as evidence that you tend to discredit science. Your reply to that statement is that you said C. If this does not imply denying that you said A, then my evidence is good and my argument stands. If it implies denying that you said A, then you're caught lying. Your choice.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am

Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sun Jul 18, 2021 3:27 pm The point is that you claim things are real ("scientifically-real") only based on intersubjectivity, and intersubjectivity is real because...intersubjectivity. This is circular reasoning and you never get to say what justifies the belief in intersubjectivity as real. As one might expect, you'll complain that this is a straw man, but I asked you a zillion times to give us an account of the reality of intersubjectivity and you have failed to deliver.

1. What is claimed to be scientific is empirically real [ albeit, polished conjectures]
2. What is scientific is based on intersubjectivity [a process within Science].
3. Intersubjectivity is real.
The syllogism is valid and sound.
What is real within science is based critically on its testability, repeatability and significantly on positive utility.
There must be a real process [verifiable#] on intersubjective consensus which is real, otherwise scientific truths cannot be real.
# based on documents from real people, etc.

Your syllogism above is poorly constructed and it does not produce that conclusion. The premises have the following structure:

1. A is empirically real.
2. A is based on intersubjectivity.

Its actual conclusion would be: what is empirically real is based on intersubjectivity (intersubjective consensus). It does not prove that intersubjectivity is real, which was the challenge you faced. What you have stated only places the justification of the reality of intersubjectivity on more intersubjectivity, and so you can go on infinitely, without ever presenting a case for the reality of intersubjectivity that does not use intersubjectivity to ground it. It's a circular argument. For now, the reality of intersubjectivity is only an assumption in which you have faith.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am The onus is on you [as a critical realist] to prove ‘objects-as-they-are’ are transferable or correspond to independent objects-qua-object.
As a critical realist you are claiming there are objects-qua-objects that are really real [can be inferred] and existing independent of the human conditions.

Again, realists can only be concerned with whether objects exist apart from the minds of subjects or not. The distinction is only between objects and subjects, not between some different manifestations of objects, which is a pure invention of idealists and their phenomenological approach to metaphysics. The burden of proof falls in the hands of metaphysical anti-realists that wish to advance the view that there is no ontological distinction between objects and subjects (the default, common sense view) and that objects are entirely subsumed within subjective experience, in other words, that they can ONLY exist as mind objects. Even worst for them, when they engage in such problematic demonstrations, they must inevitably undermine the basis of their own framework and are constantly shooting themselves in the feet.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am That was a quickie based on common knowledge of what astronomers are discussing.
Prove to me the science communicator is wrong in commuting what real scientists in that respect are not using the same terms.
Here is an article from NASA on the same point.
https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/f ... e-galaxies

Since you are so smart, show me general common sources where ALL astronomers and physicists refer to “energy travelling long distances” in their reference to their observations and discussion of stars, galaxies, black holes, etc.

The naivety which you display in your understanding of these subjects is that of a 5-year old. Another popular science article will not help you prove your point any more than the previous one. I repeat: no scientist is trying to convince, not even suggesting, that what we observe from stars are real-time events. The effect of delay in our observations of the universe is not a central theme in every astronomical description for the simple reason that it is basic common knowledge. When it comes to giving basic descriptions to the laymen, such as in this other article, the issue is dealt with without any controversy:

https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/news/1230/ ... distances/

Light years also provide some helpful perspective on solar system distances: the Sun is about 8 light minutes from Earth. (And yes, there are also light seconds!) And because light from objects travels at light speed, when you see the Sun, or Jupiter or a distant star, you're seeing it as it was when the light left it, be that 8 minutes, tens of minutes or 4.3 years ago. And this is fundamental to the idea that when we're looking farther out into space, we're seeing farther back in time. (Think about it: you're seeing all the stars in the sky at different times in history — some a few years ago, others hundreds of years ago — all at the same time!)

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am Since you are so smart, show me general common sources where ALL astronomers and physicists refer to “energy travelling long distances” in their reference to their observations and discussion of stars, galaxies, black holes, etc.

Oh, please. Anyone with some little science background from high school knows that when talking about distances, properties of objects and events in astronomy and cosmology we are dealing with measurements made by scientists. And what do they measure? They measure light, radio waves, microwaves, X-rays, infrared rays, gamma rays, etc., that is, electromagnetic radiation, which travels at the speed of light. And guess what, all of these are forms of energy.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am

Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sun Jul 18, 2021 3:27 pm You have to be joking. This is not the problem of induction. Whatever delay there might be in sense-impressions, the acknowledgement of such delay implies a causal relation between the object and its perception, which would be absent if sense-impression is all there is and causality was imposed on it by an a priori category of the understanding. How could you explain the delay if the interaction between objects and its perception was not real?

This point is not about the Problem of Induction per se.

This is to reemphasize there is no way you will as above is able to confirm what objects-as-what-they-are are thing-in-themselves because there is ALWAYS a reality-GAP between objects-as-they-are and objects-as-they-appear.

First, note you have not replied to the logical argument presented above. How could you explain the delay if the interaction between objects and its perception was not real?
Secondly, there are plenty of ways in which the supposed "reality gap" shows to be completely irrelevant to determine whether there's a causal relation between the object and its perception. A man takes a first look at the great pyramid of Giza from nearby distance and its image makes an impression in his eyes in a fraction of milliseconds, but in this time gap the flow of impressions has not ceased, so he gets a continuous flow of impressions that give sense to the continous presence of the pyramid. We could also forget about the man and record the actual and continuous presence of the great pyramid with non-conscious instruments.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am The delay is merely conditionally real based on conditioned objects-as-they-appear and conditioned [illusory] objects-as-they-are. In both cases, they are conditioned by human conditions. Since they are always conditioned, there are no absolutely independent objects-as-they-are in your critical realist sense, in the ultimate sense [not common sense]; you are merely insisting on an illusion thus deluded.

As already explained, the so-called delay is irrelevant. You are also contradicting yourself (again) by denying any epistemological value to the intersubjective consensus that you said conditioned the reality of things, since you say that what is conditioned and agreed by consensus as real, MUST BE NECESSARILY illusory. Therefore, scientific consensus, according to you, is fundamentally wrong. That's why also you cannot distinguish reality from hallucination. You are, of course, the one deluded.

Intersubjective consensus might condition our conception of objects, epistemologically speaking, but the "conditioning" that the anti-realist points at is supposedly occurring at the moment of perception of one individual, perception that remains private and therefore cannot be talked about by the anti-realist beyond that individual (which can only be the anti-realist making the claim). So, any talk of "human conditions" in the abstract here involves very poor reasoning, it implies attributing reality to a set of individuals, supposedly conditioned themselves by the perception of the only individual the anti-realist has access to (himself). No matter how many contortions of "perspectives" the anti-realist engages with, his stance is self-defeated since the beginning, they ultimately must deny access to anything but their sense-impressions, and all objects (including subjects) are mind objects. To infer the actual existence of those subjects by conceptualization, empirical verification, intersubjective consensus, or whatever, is the same procedure they deny to realists. Their ultimate frontier is solipsism.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am As I have stated before, empirically and scientifically, the moon is independent of the human observers. This is so obvious with common sense and the conventional sense.

If the Moon is independent of human observers, then realism is true and you lost your challenge right at the moment I told you it was over (36 pages back in this thread). The problem is that you came back to discredit empirical and scientific evidence, so that ultimately, according to you, the Moon is not independent of the human observers, even when not observed. It is this last statement, that overrides the previous one, that gave us 37 more pages.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am If you have not read this post re the Pando tree
viewtopic.php?p=519689#p519689
I insist you read it to understand why you are unable to grasp my point re the view reality in a higher sense of reality.

While you like to look at reality with an analogy to the Pando tree (an individual object that looks like many objects), I like to look at reality with an analogy to common trees (individual objects that look as individual objects and form sets of objects). Common trees are not completely isolated, they share connections with the rest of their environment, yet some of these connections are essential, while others are contingent. The absence or presence of those contingent connections makes very little difference to their existence.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am Reflect more deeply.
Re common sense, Empirically, scientifically and conventionally, the ‘moon’ exists independent of the observer.
To you as a critical realist, there is a supposedly moon-as-it-is as different from the moon-as-it-appear to humans.

No, there's no such distinction for a realist, there are no two moons as two different manifestations of an abstract moon. That is purely an invention of idealists. There's the Moon. If it's a real object, it must be, in terms of sufficiency and necessity, independent of every subject's mind, and vice versa. If it's not a real object, it must be, in terms of sufficiency and necessity, dependent of every subject's mind, and vice versa. Science and senseful philosophy provide more than enough justifications to believe that the Moon is a real object, independent of every subject's mind. There's no other "higher", mystical sense, in which the Moon is both real and not real, sufficiently and necessarily dependent of every subject's mind and at the same time sufficiently and necessarily not dependent of every subject's mind. It is ridiculous.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am But I have highlighted to you there is a Reality-Gap where it is impossible for any human to breach to the gap between the moon-as-it-appear to the supposedly moon-as-it-is in real time.

No, you have not shown solid evidence that there's such "reality gap", just conjectures that ultimately undermine your own base framework.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am So you rely on the best inference to comfort yourself that your supposedly moon-as-it-is is a really real moon.
But then your best inference based on Science is merely a polished conjecture based on human conditions. In a way it is a speculation, i.e. a polished speculation that is impossible to be confirmed at all.
Will you counter it is possible?

You must ask yourself, WHY do you and the majority of humans insist upon a moon-as-it-is when it an impossibility but merely a speculation.
Note the dilemma of a terrible cognitive dissonance that force you to jump to such a conclusion.

Making accurate predictions about the Moon's behavior and its properties, independent of people's opinions, is far from being a "polished conjecture". Mere speculation would have not made possible that scientists designed a rocket and landed it with people over the orbiting moon's surface.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am

Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sun Jul 18, 2021 3:27 pm Alright, note that "no direct contact with anything" includes direct contact with sense-impressions. So, then, how you justify anything you believe?

I am not bothered with ‘no direct contact’ as in the reality-Gap or sense-impressions.
As I had stated what is real must be verifiable and justifiable to a specific framework and system of knowledge [FSK] where Science is the most credible but it must be supervised with critical philosophy to manage the limits.

You did not answer the question. You just said that it doesn't bother you, you mean: your lack of justification for believing something does not bother you. Isn't that hypocritical from someone bothered with other people's justification for believing something?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am

Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sun Jul 18, 2021 3:27 pm You just asserted "we do not have direct contact with anything". And you have claimed not having direct contact unwarrants any claim about that which someone is supposedly in contact with. So, following your own argument, there would be no possibility to verify or justify anything. Perspective becomes "anything goes".

See my above point.

No, you made no point. You just avoided the issue and said didn't care about thinking nonsense.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am Show me examples where I had failed to provide rational, solid arguments, evidences, verifications and justifications.

Just read every post from you in this thread.

Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 1:47 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am I never assert that the confidence that Science is the most credible framework is based on pure faith.
What I implied that your insistence that scientific facts represent what is real to you [as a critical realist] is based on pure faith, since you are not the one who is doing the experiments, tests, etc. to arrive at the conclusion of those scientific fact.

You're truly lost in space, having no logical compass. Let's do this with apples and oranges to see if you can finally get it:

"The lay-person accepts scientific facts based purely on faith" (actual quote from VA).
Veritas Aequitas is a lay-person
Therefore, Veritas Aequitas accepts scientific facts based purely on faith.

You have confirmed this view several times:

You are just applying 'faith' in believing what the scientists tell you.
[...]for us who are not doing the real scientific tests and inferencing, one has to rely on faith that scientific truths are reliable.

And so, my statement "you actually don't find the scientific framework credible" is confirmed by your own words. It might be that you claim faith is a valid criterion for credibility, but that would be absolutely foolish.

You are missing my point.
First why scientific knowledge is credible is because they are verified and justified empirically [thus not by pure faith] in contrast to the pure faith by theologians’ claims of their divine knowledge.

For those scientific facts that I have not tested nor verified by myself directly, I will have to accept them based on faith [not necessary pure or blind].
Note I presented the meaning of ‘faith’ as
“complete trust or confidence in someone or something” [google]
In this case, I have complete trust and confidence in the Scientific Framework and its claim and challenge for any to test its repeatability.
For those scientific knowledge I have tested and confirmed it is true, I don’t have to accept them based on faith, e.g. water is made of H2O and other simple scientific experiments I have done and confirmed to be true.

As such, my point is,
Whatever scientific facts that you have not verified and justified using scientific methods to confirm the results yourself, you are relying such knowledge based on faith.
“complete trust or confidence in someone or something” [google]
based on various criteria you had used.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am I have done VERY extensive research on what is philosophy and its essence by reviewing and extracting from the context ‘philosophy’ is used within Western, Eastern and in every domain.

I wouldn't have any faith in your claim that you have done "VERY extensive research on what is philosophy". It certainly doesn't show anywhere.

Fair enough since I have not provided the evidence.
Regardless I have collected hundreds of definition of ‘what is philosophy’ from google and books I have read [this is so easy] and extracted the essence of ‘what is philosophy’ therefrom.

Your definition ‘Philosophy is Speculation’ is too gross and incompetent.
Every subject has its speculative aspect and they don’t represent the essence of the subject itself, it is just the same with philosophy.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am You yourself admit you are speculating; that in the ultimate sense can possibly be wrong with what is real. Note the ultimate sense not conventional sense.
You are speculating more than what Science is confirming based on observations and scientific facts are merely polished conjectures.

Your lack of comprehension and your inability to think clearly don't allow you to notice the difference between the transitive and intransitive uses of the verb to speculate, so you say these ridiculous statements. I don't need to speculate (to conjecture without knowing the complete facts) on the factual reality of things because there are reliable methods of independently verifying their objective reality, which is more than simple consensus among scientists.

The best method of verifying objective reality is from the scientific framework [thus a qualified scientific objectivity] and the inferences are ultimately ‘polished conjectures’.
In addition, by default science only provide scientific objectivity and not philosophical objectivity as your claim re critical realism.
Thus your claim of philosophical objective reality is a speculation and more so, an illusion and so your philosophical views are delusional.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am Meanwhile my anti-realism [Kantian+] accept what Science concludes and I do not speculate like you do. Because Scientific facts are merely polished conjectures, my anti-realism uses critical philosophy to monitor the credibility scientific facts plus imputing moral elements and other positive elements.

Your anti-realism does not accept science because science is realistic. Thomson discovers the electron, scientists tell us it is a fundamental particle of what the world is made of, and then you say electrons never really existed and they are only conjectures within a framework. That's not even close to accepting what science concludes. For arguing against the inherent realism of science you then go on in a philosophical, purely conjectural journey without much internal coherence.

Strawman again!
As far as from the scientific perspective, I accept, electrons exist before Thomson.
BUT [note this] where you claimed there is an electron-in-itself (re critical realism, exists absolutely independent of human conditions) [which is not scientific] then it does not exist as real.
You cannot conflate your philosophical critical realism with Science which is not an ‘ism.’
How come you are so blind to that?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am

Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sun Jul 18, 2021 3:27 pm Not so fast. You have been caught, I have actually quoted you saying what you're declaring now as "none of the above". But that's fine, now I have you on record denying that what is real emerges from or is grounded on human conditions. Then you are forcing yourself to acknowledge that there isn't a necessary relationship between what is real and human conditions, in other words, you're denying epistemic correlationism, which was the position you have been wanting to advance all along.

What are you talking about?
Read my point again, i.e.
As stated earlier, I have always insisted C is real as an emergent and cannot be independent of human conditions.
I don’t get your point?

You pretend to be unaware of the fact that you are denying saying exactly what you end up repeating in your denial. It is like saying: "I never claimed Nixon was real and a president, I always insisted Nixon was real and a president".
I quoted you saying that what is real (C) is grounded on human conditions, but you denied you meant "grounding". I then rephrased to: what is real (C) is emergent from human conditions, and you reply: no, C is real as an emergent, dependent of human conditions. If you are going to play with words to escape from your blatant contradictions, at least don't make it look so grossly unsophisticated.

Nah, the confusion is based on your ignorance.
I have stated p and not-p can both exist at the same time but not in the same sense [Law of Non-Contradiction].
You just don’t have the philosophical depth to grasp the points [or paradox] I’ve made.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am ‘Grounding’ is merely talking about the cause[s] of effects.
There is no issue with discussing about cause [ground] and effects but there is a limit to the question of ‘ground’ when the implications lead to an infinite regress or a final cause. This is where I will denial the question of ‘grounding’.
What is the problem with this?

As with so many other subjects, you're ignorant of what you're talking about this time. Here, take a look and learn something new:

Metaphysical Grounding

Grounding is a topic in metaphysics. Consider an ordinary physical object, such as a table, and the atoms it is made of. Without the atoms, the table would not exist. The table's existence depends on the existence of the atoms. This kind of dependence is called "grounding" to distinguish it from other kinds of dependence, such as the dependence of an effect on its cause. It is sometimes called metaphysical or ontological dependence.

Grounding can be characterized as a relation between a ground and a grounded entity. The ground exists on a more fundamental level than the grounded entity, in the sense that the grounded entity depends for its existence or its properties on its ground.

A distinction is typically made between grounding relations and other dependence relations, such as causation[1] or realization. Grounding is often considered to be a form of non-causal determination or priority.

Note your link refer to “metaphysical or ontological dependence” .. I have already stated I am not interested in chasing ontological ‘turtles’.

Note the meaning of ‘ground’ I am using is

• https://www.dictionary.com/browse/ground
  Ground: the foundation or basis on which a belief or action rests; reason or cause:
  grounds for dismissal.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am I have read my statement.
Produce my exact statement I made and show why you think I was caught lying.
I stated there were “no ‘electrons-in-[themselves] [sic]’ before Thomson and even after Thomson. There are only electrons [not in themselves] as confirmed from the scientific framework.

I asked you a specific question and you replied with several statements: A, B, and C. Then I presented A as evidence that you tend to discredit science. Your reply to that statement is that you said C. If this does not imply denying that you said A, then my evidence is good and my argument stands. If it implies denying that you said A, then you're caught lying. Your choice.

Note my point re Thomson earlier in terms of scientific electrons and electron-in-itself.
It is the same point with the scientific moon and the Moon-in-itself.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am

Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sun Jul 18, 2021 3:27 pm The point is that you claim things are real ("scientifically-real") only based on intersubjectivity, and intersubjectivity is real because...intersubjectivity. This is circular reasoning and you never get to say what justifies the belief in intersubjectivity as real. As one might expect, you'll complain that this is a straw man, but I asked you a zillion times to give us an account of the reality of intersubjectivity and you have failed to deliver.

1. What is claimed to be scientific is empirically real [ albeit, polished conjectures]
2. What is scientific is based on intersubjectivity [a process within Science].
3. Intersubjectivity is real.
The syllogism is valid and sound.
What is real within science is based critically on its testability, repeatability and significantly on positive utility.
There must be a real process [verifiable#] on intersubjective consensus which is real, otherwise scientific truths cannot be real.
# based on documents from real people, etc.

Your syllogism above is poorly constructed and it does not produce that conclusion. The premises have the following structure:

1. A is empirically real.
2. A is based on intersubjectivity.

Its actual conclusion would be: what is empirically real is based on intersubjectivity (intersubjective consensus). It does not prove that intersubjectivity is real, which was the challenge you faced. What you have stated only places the justification of the reality of intersubjectivity on more intersubjectivity, and so you can go on infinitely, without ever presenting a case for the reality of intersubjectivity that does not use intersubjectivity to ground it. It's a circular argument. For now, the reality of intersubjectivity is only an assumption in which you have faith.

How come you are so ignorant when this issue is so easy to fathom?

In this case, it does not prove directly that intersubjectivity is real.
Rather it is an indirect inference.

A has to be based on real intersubjectivity in order for A to be real.
If A is based on unreal intersubjective then A cannot be real.
Since A is real, its intersubjective must be real.

To prove intersubjective consensus is real, that is SO easy, i.e. I mentioned the empirical evidences are easily available for verification from the real test results by other scientists, communications and real documentation of consensus among the relevant parties [the scientists involved].

Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 1:53 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am The onus is on you [as a critical realist] to prove ‘objects-as-they-are’ are transferable or correspond to independent objects-qua-object.
As a critical realist you are claiming there are objects-qua-objects that are really real [can be inferred] and existing independent of the human conditions.

Again, realists can only be concerned with whether objects exist apart from the minds of subjects or not. The distinction is only between objects and subjects, not between some different manifestations of objects, which is a pure invention of idealists and their phenomenological approach to metaphysics.
The burden of proof falls in the hands of metaphysical anti-realists that wish to advance the view that there is no ontological distinction between objects and subjects (the default, common sense view) and that objects are entirely subsumed within subjective experience, in other words, that they can ONLY exist as mind objects. Even worst for them, when they engage in such problematic demonstrations, they must inevitably undermine the basis of their own framework and are constantly shooting themselves in the feet.

Strawman again.
What you are attacking do not represent my position so I will not be bothered with your strawman until you state my position correctly and countered therefrom.

In any case, the OP is on you the realist [you’re a critical realist] to prove there are real objects that exists absolutely independent of the human conditions.
You have failed to do so this far.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am That was a quickie based on common knowledge of what astronomers are discussing.
Prove to me the science communicator is wrong in commuting what real scientists in that respect are not using the same terms.
Here is an article from NASA on the same point.
https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/f ... e-galaxies

Since you are so smart, show me general common sources where ALL astronomers and physicists refer to “energy travelling long distances” in their reference to their observations and discussion of stars, galaxies, black holes, etc.

The naivety which you display in your understanding of these subjects is that of a 5-year old. Another popular science article will not help you prove your point any more than the previous one. I repeat: no scientist is trying to convince, not even suggesting, that what we observe from stars are real-time events. The effect of delay in our observations of the universe is not a central theme in every astronomical description for the simple reason that it is basic common knowledge. When it comes to giving basic descriptions to the laymen, such as in this other article, the issue is dealt with without any controversy:

https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/news/1230/ ... distances/

Light years also provide some helpful perspective on solar system distances: the Sun is about 8 light minutes from Earth. (And yes, there are also light seconds!) And because light from objects travels at light speed, when you see the Sun, or Jupiter or a distant star, you're seeing it as it was when the light left it, be that 8 minutes, tens of minutes or 4.3 years ago. And this is fundamental to the idea that when we're looking farther out into space, we're seeing farther back in time. (Think about it: you're seeing all the stars in the sky at different times in history — some a few years ago, others hundreds of years ago — all at the same time!)

I reference a link from nasa.gov and you claimed that is related to a 5 years old.
In this case, that you’re using the same nasa.gov is also related to a 5 years old.

You are trying to be deceptive here.
The point is in general the personnel in nasa-gov or other professional astronomers do not refer to “energy travelling long distances” but merely stated either ‘moon’ ‘stars’ ‘sun’ galaxies and related entities without mentioning energy or light travelling long distances.

It is only when specifically required and necessary to the context that they will mention light travelling long distance and the reality-Gap.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am Since you are so smart, show me general common sources where ALL astronomers and physicists refer to “energy travelling long distances” in their reference to their observations and discussion of stars, galaxies, black holes, etc.

Oh, please. Anyone with some little science background from high school knows that when talking about distances, properties of objects and events in astronomy and cosmology we are dealing with measurements made by scientists. And what do they measure? They measure light, radio waves, microwaves, X-rays, infrared rays, gamma rays, etc., that is, electromagnetic radiation, which travels at the speed of light. And guess what, all of these are forms of energy.

The above is out of point.
My original point was that when scientists talk about stars, galaxies they are referring to real scientific objective entities without reference to the time & distance differences and the reality-Gap. They only refer to this reality-Gap when there is a specific requirement to do so.
If they do so, science merely assume the real object exist or existed.

You as a critical realist do not assume but insist there is a real object existing independently out there without regard to the reality-Gap at all. This is what I mean that your claim is delusional in the finer sense.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am

Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sun Jul 18, 2021 3:27 pm You have to be joking. This is not the problem of induction. Whatever delay there might be in sense-impressions, the acknowledgement of such delay implies a causal relation between the object and its perception, which would be absent if sense-impression is all there is and causality was imposed on it by an a priori category of the understanding. How could you explain the delay if the interaction between objects and its perception was not real?

This point is not about the Problem of Induction per se.

This is to reemphasize there is no way you will as above is able to confirm what objects-as-what-they-are are thing-in-themselves because there is ALWAYS a reality-GAP between objects-as-they-are and objects-as-they-appear.

First, note you have not replied to the logical argument presented above. How could you explain the delay if the interaction between objects and its perception was not real?
Secondly, there are plenty of ways in which the supposed "reality gap" shows to be completely irrelevant to determine whether there's a causal relation between the object and its perception. A man takes a first look at the great pyramid of Giza from nearby distance and its image makes an impression in his eyes in a fraction of milliseconds, but in this time gap the flow of impressions has not ceased, so he gets a continuous flow of impressions that give sense to the continous presence of the pyramid. We could also forget about the man and record the actual and continuous presence of the great pyramid with non-conscious instruments.

The point that I brought up the existence of a reality-Gap [space and time] imply that the delay between the supposed ‘object’ and its perception is accountable and ‘real’.

Note the reality-Gap is real, how can it be irrelevant.
It is relevant to signify there is a reality Gap between “objects-as-they-are” and “objects-as-they-appear.”
Because of the real reality-Gap it is impossible for humans to know or realize ‘object-as-they-are’ really are, thus in a finer sense, that is a mere speculation of what “objects-as-they-are.”

If you are still banking on cause and effect, note Hume’s Problem of causality.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am The delay is merely conditionally real based on conditioned objects-as-they-appear and conditioned [illusory] objects-as-they-are. In both cases, they are conditioned by human conditions. Since they are always conditioned, there are no absolutely independent objects-as-they-are in your critical realist sense, in the ultimate sense [not common sense]; you are merely insisting on an illusion thus deluded.

As already explained, the so-called delay is irrelevant. You are also contradicting yourself (again) by denying any epistemological value to the intersubjective consensus that you said conditioned the reality of things, since you say that what is conditioned and agreed by consensus as real, MUST BE NECESSARILY illusory. Therefore, scientific consensus, according to you, is fundamentally wrong. That's why also you cannot distinguish reality from hallucination. You are, of course, the one deluded.

Intersubjective consensus might condition our conception of objects, epistemologically speaking, but the "conditioning" that the anti-realist points at is supposedly occurring at the moment of perception of one individual, perception that remains private and therefore cannot be talked about by the anti-realist beyond that individual (which can only be the anti-realist making the claim).
So, any talk of "human conditions" in the abstract here involves very poor reasoning, it implies attributing reality to a set of individuals, supposedly conditioned themselves by the perception of the only individual the anti-realist has access to (himself). No matter how many contortions of "perspectives" the anti-realist engages with, his stance is self-defeated since the beginning, they ultimately must deny access to anything but their sense-impressions, and all objects (including subjects) are mind objects. To infer the actual existence of those subjects by conceptualization, empirical verification, intersubjective consensus, or whatever, is the same procedure they deny to realists. Their ultimate frontier is solipsism.

Note I will not bother with your strawman on anti-realism.
I suggest you present your understanding of what my exact anti-realist stance is to obtain consensus before you counter it. Else it is waste of time for both of us.

Another strawman again, I never said the following;

“since you say that what is conditioned and agreed by consensus as real, MUST BE NECESSARILY illusory.”

What I stated is,
.. what is conditioned and agreed by consensus is real relative to the conditions [i.e. FSK] but it is illusory if not supported by a credible FSK.
Your claims from Critical Realism [absolute independent object] is beyond what is scientific, thus illusory.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am As I have stated before, empirically and scientifically, the moon is independent of the human observers. This is so obvious with common sense and the conventional sense.

If the Moon is independent of human observers, then realism is true and you lost your challenge right at the moment I told you it was over (36 pages back in this thread). The problem is that you came back to discredit empirical and scientific evidence, so that ultimately, according to you, the Moon is not independent of the human observers, even when not observed. It is this last statement, that overrides the previous one, that gave us 37 more pages.

Strawman again!
I have already stated a ‘1000’ times, I do not deny scientific knowledge but my acceptance scientific knowledge is qualified and conditioned upon the scientific framework [FSK].

Note I have already warned you, you cannot conflate your critical realism with science which is not an ‘ism’.
This is the same with theists should not conflate theism with Science which they often do.

Even then Science is of no help to your critical realism claim of the moon being absolutely independence from human conditions because whatever the scientific conclusions, they are not independent of human conditions implied with the scientific framework that support the scientific conclusions.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am If you have not read this post re the Pando tree
viewtopic.php?p=519689#p519689
I insist you read it to understand why you are unable to grasp my point re the view reality in a higher sense of reality.

While you like to look at reality with an analogy to the Pando tree (an individual object that looks like many objects), I like to look at reality with an analogy to common trees (individual objects that look as individual objects and form sets of objects).
Common trees are not completely isolated, they share connections with the rest of their environment, yet some of these connections are essential, while others are contingent. The absence or presence of those contingent connections makes very little difference to their existence.

Note that is an analogy.
The point is despite the most obvious independence between objects there are some connections that the normal person is unable to grasp.
This is the reason why you are unable to grasp the connection I had intended to demonstrate due to your dogmatism, confirmation bias and blindness.

You are ignorant again.
If there is no sun, water, down to the Big Bang do you think there will be trees?

There are relevant interconnections that you are unable to grasp on the issue that objects are not absolutely independent of the human conditions.
Note Chaos Theory for example [wonder you are familiar with this], e.g. someone’s sneeze [or even fart] in the USA can cause a typhoon in Hong Kong.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am Reflect more deeply.
Re common sense, Empirically, scientifically and conventionally, the ‘moon’ exists independent of the observer.
To you as a critical realist, there is a supposedly moon-as-it-is as different from the moon-as-it-appear to humans.

No, there's no such distinction for a realist, there are no two moons as two different manifestations of an abstract moon. That is purely an invention of idealists. There's the Moon. If it's a real object, it must be, in terms of sufficiency and necessity, independent of every subject's mind, and vice versa. If it's not a real object, it must be, in terms of sufficiency and necessity, dependent of every subject's mind, and vice versa. Science and senseful philosophy provide more than enough justifications to believe that the Moon is a real object, independent of every subject's mind. There's no other "higher", mystical sense, in which the Moon is both real and not real, sufficiently and necessarily dependent of every subject's mind and at the same time sufficiently and necessarily not dependent of every subject's mind. It is ridiculous.

Strawman again, where did I state there are two moons?

If you are relying on “sufficiency and necessity” that is too crude.
Note the critique on the use of the Principle of Sufficient Reason for any finer philosophical issues.

But then if you fall back on Science and scientific knowledge again, which I had stated, at its best is merely ‘polished conjectures’.

If you rely on Science like I do as well, your claim of the moon cannot reconcile with the claims of the philosophical realist [critical realist in your case.

Do you even understand the philosophical essence of your critical realist claim? note;

• [Philosophical] Realism about a certain kind of thing is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
  […]
  Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved.

An approximation of reality imply there is something really independent real out there that is to be approximated.

Btw, in Science some scientist merely assume the above real things exist as a matter of convenience.

On the other hand the philosophical realist insist there is some thing that is really real out by itself, i.e. as things-in-themselves.

When you keep falling back on Science, that is contradicting your critical realism claim.

So there is no way you can insist your critical realism claim is true! Thus it is merely speculating and ultimately are illusions and being delusional.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am But I have highlighted to you there is a Reality-Gap where it is impossible for any human to breach to the gap between the moon-as-it-appear to the supposedly moon-as-it-is in real time.

No, you have not shown solid evidence that there's such "reality gap", just conjectures that ultimately undermine your own base framework.

What??
Remember you provided the link for nasa.gov about time and distance between the stars, planet, galaxies observed and the supposedly object out there.
The real stars you observed in the stars at night may not exists as real in real-time since they could have imploded in real time.
That is the reality-Gap.
How can you deny this obvious point?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am So you rely on the best inference to comfort yourself that your supposedly moon-as-it-is is a really real moon.
But then your best inference based on Science is merely a polished conjecture based on human conditions. In a way it is a speculation, i.e. a polished speculation that is impossible to be confirmed at all.
Will you counter it is possible?

You must ask yourself, WHY do you and the majority of humans insist upon a moon-as-it-is when it an impossibility but merely a speculation.
Note the dilemma of a terrible cognitive dissonance that force you to jump to such a conclusion.

Making accurate predictions about the Moon's behavior and its properties, independent of people's opinions, is far from being a "polished conjecture". Mere speculation would have not made possible that scientists designed a rocket and landed it with people over the orbiting moon's surface.

You cannot deny the principle that at best scientific conclusions are ‘polished conjectures’.
A scientific theory began with a abducted hypothesis, i.e. a conjecture.
This conjecture is then polished continuously and sustained with empirical evidences.
Such a polished conjecture can just be rejected with the slightest critical evidence against its claim.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am

Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sun Jul 18, 2021 3:27 pm Alright, note that "no direct contact with anything" includes direct contact with sense-impressions. So, then, how you justify anything you believe?

I am not bothered with ‘no direct contact’ as in the reality-Gap or sense-impressions.
As I had stated what is real must be verifiable and justifiable to a specific framework and system of knowledge [FSK] where Science is the most credible but it must be supervised with critical philosophy to manage the limits.

You did not answer the question. You just said that it doesn't bother you, you mean: your lack of justification for believing something does not bother you. Isn't that hypocritical from someone bothered with other people's justification for believing something?

Note I presented an alternative to what is more reliable than your need for contact.
Whatever you claim as real, just ensure it is verifiable and justifiable to a specific framework and system of knowledge [FSK] where Science is the most credible. Such a reality can only a conditional reality that is conditioned upon human conditions thus counter the realists claim of absolute independence from human conditions.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am

Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sun Jul 18, 2021 3:27 pm You just asserted "we do not have direct contact with anything". And you have claimed not having direct contact unwarrants any claim about that which someone is supposedly in contact with. So, following your own argument, there would be no possibility to verify or justify anything. Perspective becomes "anything goes".

See my above point.

No, you made no point. You just avoided the issue and said didn't care about thinking nonsense.

Note again what is most realistic is based on the scientific framework and its requirement. How you define ‘contact’ is irrelevant to Science?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:50 am Show me examples where I had failed to provide rational, solid arguments, evidences, verifications and justifications.

Just read every post from you in this thread.

That’s a cheapo.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 8:47 am You are missing my point.
First why scientific knowledge is credible [...]
[...] from the real test results by other scientists, communications and real documentation of consensus among the relevant parties [the scientists involved].

1. What a pity that you have to come back and make all kinds of contortions to hide the fact that you completely flunked on your defense of the credibility of science based on faith and consensus. What a mess.
2. Your incompetence in finding out in "Google and books" what philosophy actually is these days, deserves more pity.
3. The same for you having to correct your own statements about Thomson and electrons. Coherence and consistency are not your best friends.
4. I caught you lying again and you will avoid as much as possible the evidence that you said "what is real (C) is emergent from human conditions".
5. If you're not interested in "ontological turtles", don't imply ontological committments in your arguments. Stick to epistemology and embrace your own epistemological nihilism.
6. You're absolutely right, your argument did "not prove directly that intersubjectivity is real." I had told you so many times: the circular argument that you keep peddling is not going anywhere. The challenge still remains, but please learn to make a basic syllogism.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 10:33 am I reference a link from nasa.gov and you claimed that is related to a 5 years old.
In this case, that you’re using the same nasa.gov is also related to a 5 years old.

Nope. Your cheapo straw man arguments will not convince a 2-year old.

I didn't claim the link from NASA is related to a 5-year old. I referred to your naivety, comparable to that of a 5-year old, that pretended to prove a point about scientific theories and their take on reality based on a simple educational article from NASA. Another simple educational article from NASA took care of that pretty quickly.

Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 11:22 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 8:47 am You are missing my point.
First why scientific knowledge is credible [...]
[...] from the real test results by other scientists, communications and real documentation of consensus among the relevant parties [the scientists involved].

1. What a pity that you have to come back and make all kinds of contortions to hide the fact that you completely flunked on your defense of the credibility of science based on faith and consensus. What a mess.
2. Your incompetence in finding out in "Google and books" what philosophy actually is these days, deserves more pity.
3. The same for you having to correct your own statements about Thomson and electrons. Coherence and consistency are not your best friends.
4. I caught you lying again and you will avoid as much as possible the evidence that you said "what is real (C) is emergent from human conditions".
5. If you're not interested in "ontological turtles", don't imply ontological committments in your arguments. Stick to epistemology and embrace your own epistemological nihilism.
6. You're absolutely right, your argument did "not prove directly that intersubjectivity is real." I had told you so many times: the circular argument that you keep peddling is not going anywhere. The challenge still remains, but please learn to make a basic syllogism.

You are merely babbling and making noises without reference to the details of the arguments. You are running out of argument to counter my views and address the challenge of the OP.

This is nonsensical from you.
For example, where else can one begin to research on 'what is philosophy' if not from books and at present from an extensive search from 'google'?
I had made the attempt to exhaust all the books accessible by me [re Western, Eastern, and everywhere] and from google.
As stated I made an attempt to extract the essence of 'what is philosophy' from all the definitions of 'what is philosophy' I have collected.

Point is once the essence of "what is philosophy" is extracted, it must be able to reconcilable and cohere with every other different definition of what is philosophy, except the weird off tangent ones.

Your definition, "Philosophy is Speculation" reflect much incompetence on your part in understanding what is the essence of philosophy.
As I had stated every field of knowledge [including philosophy] involve speculations to serves its main purposes but speculation is not a main activity of philosophy.

All your points above reflect your narrow, shallow and dogmatic views.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 21, 2021 5:46 am Is everything in the Universe dependent upon everything else - absolutely it is
Things may appear to be independent of each other but in reality this is not true

For example every object in the observable Universe exerts a gravitational force upon every other object in it too
I know that you are talking about human beings rather than objects but the principle is the same - exactly the same

Empty space is not actually empty and absolute vacuums are defined by their dimension so no separation exits in either scenario
The observable Universe has been in a continuous state of existence for the last I4 billion years so there are no gaps in reality

Ergo every member of the forum is therefore connected to every other member of the forum
We all came from stardust and have a common biological ancestry too - by which I mean four billion year old bacteria rather than apes
So whether you love everyone or hate everyone here or something in between those two extremes you are all absolutely inter connected

Now group hug anyone ?

You have just triggered all the individualists and they will now proceed to prove you wrong by burning your shit down in a rage of denial.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 21, 2021 5:46 am We all came from stardust and have a common biological ancestry too - by which I mean four billion year old bacteria rather than apes
So whether you love everyone or hate everyone here or something in between those two extremes you are all absolutely inter connected

Now group hug anyone ?

To most of the biological world, everything looks like dinner, and everything lives by eating everything else. The world is just a giant banquet--mangia bene!

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 6:58 am You are merely babbling and making noises without reference to the details of the arguments. You are running out of argument to counter my views and address the challenge of the OP.

Nah, there's simply no point in trying to present extensive arguments that you will avoid dealing with, while resorting to your usual dogmatic mantras. It is not that I'm out of arguments, they are there, still unanswered and not dealt with properly, and apparently too much for what your idealist cult can handle.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 6:58 am This is nonsensical from you.
For example, where else can one begin to research on 'what is philosophy' if not from books and at present from an extensive search from 'google'?
I had made the attempt to exhaust all the books accessible by me [re Western, Eastern, and everywhere] and from google.
As stated I made an attempt to extract the essence of 'what is philosophy' from all the definitions of 'what is philosophy' I have collected.

This is a perfect example of what I've been saying. Your childish, silly naivety to produce such laughable arguments is baffling. I mean, you really expect me and everyone else to buy into the notion that "research" means googling and reading books from a couch in your home. One has to be really stupid to entertain such a vulgar, pedestrian notion, in a debate forum dedicated to a complex issue from a particular discipline. No different than anti-vaxxers, flat-earthers, climate change deniers and alternative medicine and nutrition gurus feeling entitled to lecture the rest of the world based on their "own research" expertise.