Must We Believe in an 'Objective Reality' to Do Science?

[Sunstone]

Must we believe in an 'objective reality' to do science?

For the purposes of absolutely ensuring a fruitful and beneficial discussion will be had by all, let us define 'objective reality' as "The metaphysical claim that there exists a reality independent of any mind and/or conscious awareness." That is basically a fancy way of saying, "There exists a non-subjective reality."

Please note the word 'metaphysical'. That is merely a nod to the inescapable fact that any and all claims there is an objective reality are essentially metaphysical claims. If you do not understand why that is so, please be so kind as to read up on the subject before you muck up this thread. You can find a dangerously thrilling discussion of the topic here: Objectivity.​

HINT (For those who like hints): For methodological reasons, metaphysics lies beyond the scope of the sciences. Emphasis on the word "methodological". But why? Roughly put, to establish 'scientific truths' (i.e. reliable facts and hypotheses), one must use both reason (logic) and empirical observation. But one cannot, by definition, empirically observe a non-empirical entity, such as a metaphysical entity. Hence, one cannot bring science to bear on metaphysical claims.

Comments? Questions? Subpoenas?

Good luck!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Must we believe in an 'objective reality' to do science?

No! You could do phenomenological non-realism as a form of coherence truth. Or even simpler - pragmaticism and say it seems to work.

 

[Audie]

Must we believe in an 'objective reality' to do science?

For the purposes of absolutely insuring a fruitful and beneficial discussion will be had by all, let us define 'objective reality' as "The metaphysical claim that there exists a reality independent of any mind and/or conscious awareness." That is basically a fancy way of saying, "There exists a non-subjective reality."

Please note the word 'metaphysical'. That is merely a nod to the inescapable fact that any and all claims there is an objective reality are essentially metaphysical claims. If you do not understand why that is so, please be so kind as to read up on the subject before you muck up this thread. You can find a dangerously thrilling discussion of the topic here: Objectivity.​

HINT (For those who like hints): For methodological reasons, metaphysics lies beyond the scope of the sciences. Emphasis on the word "methodological". But why? Roughly put, to establish 'scientific truths' (i.e. reliable facts and hypotheses), one must use both reason (logic) and empirical observation. But one cannot, by definition, empirically observe a non-empirical entity, such as a metaphysical entity. Hence, one cannot bring science to bear on metaphysical claims.

Comments? Questions? Subpoenas?

Good luck!

Thirty posts and off to ig city took care of that prob.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Thirty posts and off to ig city took care of that prob.

What so you mean?

 

[Sunstone]

Thirty posts and off to ig city took care of that prob.

I couldn't bring myself to read most
of the posts in that thread. Most likely
I won't be able to stomach most of
the posts in this thread either. But
hopefully, there will be a few.

 

[ChristineM]

Reality existed before mind put a name to it. No metaphysics required.

 

[PureX]

Sorry, but the "believe in" thing sends your question right down the crapper.

Isn't the whole point of the scientific process to overcome the whole "we believe in" bias?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Reality existed before mind put a name to it. No metaphysics required.

Philosophy is not your strong side.

You could be in an alien universe computer-simulation started 25 seconds ago and it will be turned of in the next 25 seconds.
What objective reality is as independent of the mind, is unknowable, because you know through the mind.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sorry, but the "believe in" thing sends your question right down the crapper.

Isn't the whole point of the scientific process to overcome the whole "we believe in" bias?

Well, they want you to believe that. But that is because they won't admit, that science in their worldview is based on a belief.

 

[Secret Chief]

Most likely I won't be able to stomach most of the posts in this thread either.

Doesn't that make you a little sad?
This is one such post:
I believe (!) the word should be 'ensuring', not

insuring

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes.

But caution:
It doesn't preclude also believing in the supernatural.

 

[Orbit]

"I refute it thus" said one philosopher to another, throwing a rock at his head. The rock represents reality. Whether you believe in the rock or not, you still have a bruise.

 

[Secret Chief]

Reality existed before mind put a name to it.

How do you know?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

"I refute it thus" said one philosopher to another, throwing a rock at his head. The rock represents reality. Whether you believe in the rock or not, you still have a bruise.

No, that is only evidence of the experience of a bruise. It would be the same if you were in an alien universe computer simulation.

 

[Sunstone]

Doesn't that make you a little sad?

Sometimes. It used to trouble me much more than it does today. I'm learning to accept people as they are, not as I wish them to be. But I'm not wholly there yet, and sometimes I still have my off days. Thanks for asking.

I believe (!) the word should be 'ensuring', not

Bless you for the helpful correction!

 

[Laika]

HINT (For those who like hints): For methodological reasons, metaphysics lies beyond the scope of the sciences. Emphasis on the word "methodological". But why? Roughly put, to establish 'scientific truths' (i.e. reliable facts and hypotheses), one must use both reason (logic) and empirical observation. But one cannot, by definition, empirically observe a non-empirical entity, such as a metaphysical entity. Hence, one cannot bring science to bear on metaphysical claims.

The Long Answer: Yes. We must believe in an objective reality for scientific ideas to correspond to it and therefore constitute both truth, and a collection of true ideas known as knowledge.

The error in assuming our understanding of the natural world is purely methodological lies in not treating language, logic and mathematics as the reflection of reality, but instead as products of the mind. Language, Logic and Mathematics are merely modes of reflection and representation of reality, in much the same way as we employ sound in music, images in art and thus recognise meaning to them based on a life-time of conditioned association and millennia of accumulated knowledge and experience of the species.

Although causality may not be directly observable in experimental conditions, we can assert that causality is not the subjective construction of the mind, but is a reflection of relationships found in reality. Gravity is not a mental construct- it is a fact.

Our ideas about causality may or may not be true dependent on the degree to which they reflect the actually existing cause and effect found in nature. This does not require them to be absolutely true, or true in all circumstances. They can be true most of the time, but can then be subject to revision based on identifying anonolimes, making observations and establishing new theories by hypothesising logical connections between properties we observe and the outcomes we anticipate. We may then use experiments and testing, and the collection of further data to demonstrate that our predictions are accurate or not, and to what degree they may be accurate.

The Short Answer: The World is Round. It is not "methodologically" round. "Roundness" is not a metaphysical claim based on the abstract construction of shapes. a shape is not a figment of the imagination but a generalised stereotype reflecting idealised properties found in nature. The quality of shape is not the invention of logic or pure thought. The world cannot be simultaneously round or square or flat because of the mental construction of shapes. This is not "Schrodinger's planet" where it is simultaneously flat and round at once based on the balance of probabilities. The concept of the sphere corresponds roughly to the shape of the earth. If you really want to get demented over the technicalities, the earth is a "oblate spheroid" because it bulges at the equator and is flatter at the pole because of the effect of earth's rotation.

But basically Its ****ing ROUND! And there is nothing you can do about it! *evil laughter*

 

[Secret Chief]

Bless you for the helpful correction!

I'm sure you have a little doll of me, covered in pins. My solace comes from knowing it's not the only doll.

 

[WalterTrull]

Well, the whole premise behind "Christian Science" presumes "no".
While I don't hold with a lot of that religion's dogma, I tend to agree on this point.

 

[Sunstone]

"I refute it thus" said one philosopher to another, throwing a rock at his head. The rock represents reality. Whether you believe in the rock or not, you still have a bruise.

The story I heard was Samuel Johnson and his biographer, Boswell, were discussing solipsism one day while walking somewhere. At some point, Johnson, who was no philosopher, said, "I refute it thus", and then kicked a heavy stone. Boswell, who was no genius, thought that solved the matter and recorded the incident in his biography. Unfortunately, it backfired. Upon publication, Johnson lost a bit of his reputation for brilliance.

If your curious -- and most us including myself are not -- Wittgenstein offers five criticisms of solipsism that are generally considered among the toughest challenges ever mounted against it. Me, I didn't understand a word of what he was saying when i studied him 40 years ago. Most likely still wouldn't. Solipsism just seems largely irrelevant to me outside of one or two very narrow and extremely esoteric applications.

 

[ChristineM]

How do you know?

Universe, real, 13.8 billion years old
Our galaxy, real, 13.5 billion years old
Our solar system, real, 4.57 billion years old
First life on earth, real, 3.5 billion years ago.
First human life on earth, real, 7 million years ago
First science to look at reality, around 3 to 3.5 thousand years ago.

All dates are approximate but tell a story