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

[mikkel_the_dane]

First, not that it would change the outcome of the experiment, but I like to throw the rock at @mikkel_the_dane. He is clearly the most in need of a reality check.
Next, record your observations, and those of your assistant, and those of Mikkel. In an objective reality you'd expect the observation to be very similar, in a subjective reality you'd expect them to be different.
In an objective reality you'd go on and publish your results and expect an other team to confirm your results.
In a subjective reality ... why the hell would you want to publish your results? They would be of no value to anyone as nobody expects to learn from your subjective observations. Nobody could built on your results. No paper would ever reach a double digit cite count.

Similar experiments could be done for uniformity. Knowability is a bit different and probably the most difficult to explain.

I am not a solipsist. I just don't believe in naturalism and science as some of you do.
I believe in the real world. I am just incapable of replicating that the real world is only natural, physical and objective.

BTW you haven't solved these problems as related to reality:
Simulation hypothesis - Wikipedia
Philosophical skepticism - Wikipedia

So your experience of this might not be real: You could be a computer program stated 25 seconds ago. And in 25 seconds it will be turned off.
Now I don't believe in such a reality, but I am honest. I believe in reality. Can you admit that or will you claim you can prove it?

So I might even not be Mikkel to you and you might not be in reality.

Come on: Be honest and admit that you believe in a real reality.

 

[Native]

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.

You really nailed it there In modern cosmological science they just call beliefs for assumptions, hypothesis and theories.

 

[PureX]

As much as possible. But there can't be any system of thought without a set of believes (axioms).

Axioms aren't beliefs, they're presumptions. Belief is the presumption that one's own presumptions are correct. This is irrelevant to everyone else. And should mostly be irrelevant even to ourselves. So let's dispose of the whole "belief" nonsense, and stick to the presumptions.

 

[blü 2]

I challenge all 3 of yours and replace them with these:

The world is not just external to me

The world external to me was external to me is exactly as I said. Whether you wish to refer to the realm of the self as a world is a matter for you, but it's a qualitatively different thing to the external world.

The world is in part in me as I come from the world and a part of the world is me.

An onlooker could say that, but the self can't.

That I can use my senses, reason, logic and feelings to make sense of the world including me as a part of it.

That's true of the external world. It works differently when the self tries to look at the self.

That I must test the limits of my senses, reason, logic and feelings as how they work.

If you wish, sure.

You are in effect a dualist and run into to the following problem of causation and what the world is:

No, dualism is the idea that the body is natural and the 'mind' is supernatural (and the supernatural is a notion I find incoherent).

If a world is external to the self, then what causes the self to come into existence

One's parents.

how does that happen if a world goes from external to the self to cause the self, yet be external to the self.

The sense of self does not exist in the zygote. It develops during the first four or five years of infancy.

In practice you see this post. As it is on a computer and screen, it is external to you as your self, yet it is also a chain of causation that ends in you as your understanding of it in your self.

If you mean my self reads and understands the symbols on the screen, yes, of course.

how does a world and the self connect?

Through the senses, as my second assumption says.

So here is the absurd consequence of your belief/assumption:
"Second, science's purpose is to study that external world, explore, describe and seek to explain it. So the belief that it exists is built into the very nature of science (and I think into the evolved nature of humans, indeed all animals)."

The word "explain" is not external to the self

It may not be external to the author's self at the time of writing, but if I'm not the author then the explanation is something my self obtains from the external world.

So here is the problem again: You understand what I have written. That is in your self/mind in the internal world. You now choose to answer, but that involves your computer, which is in the external world.

Just so ─ self takes the message in, composes the message out, manipulates the computer and creates an external record of my response. And this external record goes to you, your self reads and understands it, composes the message out, and so on. The same thing is done in conversation, where instead of a screen we have vibrations of the external air.

So here it is for philosophy and your attempt of being authoritative for all humans:


So you claim that you speak with authority over all human reason. You don't!!! You are in effect an authoritarian, who claim power over reason. You don't have that and you should really stop doing that. You are in effect no different than some dogmatic, fundamentalist religious people. You believe you are the correct source of a "we". You are not!!!

The world is not an external world. The world is also you with your self and you are going to prove that, because you are going to post your internal understanding to counter mine. But that is the proof. That you are a self in the world and a part of it and that you communicate with another self, me.

So that is the limit of your philosophy:
You rely on words, which are not true, because they have no correspondence to the external word and that is the only truth, you accept. But that is not true, because that you accept it, is in the internal world. So you start your system by using non-truth. The world is in part false, because all the internal parts of it are false and that includes you as a self. You are false.
Yet you are not, right?!!! Of course, you are not false, wrong or any of those. You are not even irrational. You are just not aware of the limitations of this:
- that reason is a valid tool.

So here it is for human mobility. Human mobility is a part of the world, but it has limits. The same is the case with reason and your idea that it has to be valid. I am a skeptic and to me reason is a human behaviour in the self, that has limits. Just like truth and logic.
And you are in effect apparently incapable of doubting the limits of your assumptions of how they work in practice. In effect you do the following trick in your thinking. For "that reason is a valid tool" it is a case of A is B in time, space and at least one case. But you are unable to test if there is for another case in another time and space, where reason is not a valid tool.

So here it is for the limits of your assumptions and your kind of science as above:
For the everyday world you can't with your reason, correspondence truth and science do these human behaviours:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12
You can't do good and useful, and you assume that your good and useful as it is in your post, is universal for all humans. It is not and it will never be that. You are like all other humans a product of nature and nurture and you take your understanding for granted as the correct one for all humans. It is not so.

I don't have to accept your cognition as for your 3 assumptions, because I can doubt them and replace them with another philosophical system.
The world is how it makes sense to humans. That involves at least 3 interconnected categories, which can't be reduced to less than these 3:
The objective as physical.
The inter-subjective as social.
The subjective as individuality.
You try to reduce the world down to the first one and I just do the social and individual differently and that is the falsification of your individual belief in: - that reason is a valid tool.
Reason is a useful, bit limited human behaviour. And so is your belief in objective correspondence truth. I just have to do it differently thus I falsify your "we".

So here it is reduction as absurdum. Since I don't use reason as a valid tool like you, I have already walked out in front of an oncoming truck and is longtime dead. I am so wrong, because I different than you that I am not even in the world as different than you and I haven't written all of this, because I am not like you. So I am not at all!!! I am not in reality and the world. I am so irrational and without your objective, universal, true reason, that you are not even reading this.

Start being a skeptic and doubt yourself!

 

[blü 2]

That is not solipsism, because there exists 2 different entities in this story:]/quote]. Yes.

That's why it's a variation on a solipsistic theme (mixed with a 'dream in the mind of a Higher Being' theme).

 

[Heyo]

I am not a solipsist. I just don't believe in naturalism and science as some of you do.

I know, we had that discussion.

I believe in the real world. I am just incapable of replicating that the real world is only natural, physical and objective.

BTW you haven't solved these problems as related to reality:
Simulation hypothesis - Wikipedia
Philosophical skepticism - Wikipedia

Two words: Occam's Razor

So your experience of this might not be real: You could be a computer program stated 25 seconds ago. And in 25 seconds it will be turned off.
Now I don't believe in such a reality, but I am honest. I believe in reality. Can you admit that or will you claim you can prove it?

So I might even not be Mikkel to you and you might not be in reality.

Come on: Be honest and admit that you believe in a real reality.

I do and always did. The axioms of science are beliefs. They can't be proven.
But they can be disproven and as that hasn't happened, they are the best and most practical we currently have.

 

[Heyo]

Axioms aren't beliefs, they're presumptions. Belief is the presumption that one's own presumptions are correct. This is irrelevant to everyone else. And should mostly be irrelevant even to ourselves. So let's dispose of the whole "belief" nonsense, and stick to the presumptions.

I don't really care about semantics in this case. The believers like me to admit that I have beliefs and I have no problem calling axioms beliefs.
At least they are parsimonious, don't contradict observations and aren't fixed.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The world external to me was external to me is exactly as I said. Whether you wish to refer to the realm of the self as a world is a matter for you, but it's a qualitatively different thing to the external world.
An onlooker could say that, but the self can't.
That's true of the external world. It works differently when the self tries to look at the self.
...

So I can't say that I am a part of the world, but an onlooker, who is a self and not a part of the external world can say, that another self not a part of the external world, is a part of the external world. Nonsense.

You are a dualist, because you treat the self as different with a subjective word "qualitatively" yet consider the external world objective. That is your dualism.

There is no self as you use it. The self is a process for which some of the words used that have no objective references through the senses. You can't with your senses understand the word "self". It has no objective referent and is not true. You are in effect "lying" if you believe that the self is true according to your philosophy. It is false!!!

Now stop this:
Quality is: the standard of something as measured against other things of a similar kind; ... (Google)
But your standard of measure is subjective, because you have no sensory experience back it up. The measure is in you and not external to you. You keep using internal, no objective reference words as true, yet they are not true of the external world.
Your problem is that you confuse experience of something to mean only external sensory experience and you turn around and do an internal not sensory process in the self and treat it as the external world.
You subjectively divide the world into only true as objective correspondence and then treat your internal "self" thinking as true.
That is nonsense.

So here it is for the word external:
-belonging to or forming the outer surface or structure of something.
-coming or derived from a source outside the subject affected.
-the outward features of something.

The world is not something, not just outside the subject affected and not just the outward features of something.
Here is the world:
-the earth, together with all of its countries and peoples.
-the earthly state of human existence.
-the earth with its inhabitants and all things upon it.

Now the people, humas, inhabitants of the world are a part of the world and not external to it. You are doing nonsense philosophy, because you have to "bend" everything "to fit" your objective correspondence.
BTW: That you believe in truth is internal in you and subjective, so here is some philosophy about truth.
Truth | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

You fail to consider that even truth is not the same for all humans.
So stop claim a "we" of your truth and beliefs.
I don't believe in the world as you do and you are still using internal non-objective experience and believing it is done using external sensory experience as truth.

You really have to learn to check your own thinking and not take it for granted.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

Two words: Occam's Razor

That is a subjective, cognitive rule and philosophy. Not science.

I do and always did. The axioms of science are beliefs. They can't be proven.
But they can be disproven and as that hasn't happened, they are the best and most practical we currently have.

Best and practical is not science. That is a subjective evaluation in you. And you don't speak for a "we". If you actually think you are humanity and a we, I would suggest that you don't understand what reality works. And if that is a problem for you, seek help.

Now for the bold ones, you have to explain those.

 

[Native]

That's true of the external world. It works differently when the self tries to look at the self.

This is inconsistent as "the personal self" is directly connected to the greater "collective self" all around you in all dimensions. Or at least it should be in the best of cases.

 

[blü 2]

This is inconsistent as "the personal self" is directly connected to the greater "collective self" all around you in all dimensions. Or at least it should be in the best of cases.

I doubt that you and I will ever agree on your proposition, for which I'm not aware of any examinable evidence at all, anywhere, ever.

 

[blü 2]

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.I

Boswell (Life for 1763 Aug 6) wrote ─

After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the non-existence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it, 'I refute it thus.'​

(If I recall Berkeley aright, and it's been a long time, then he didn't say quite what Boswell is accusing him of here. That shouldn't spoil a good story, of course.)

 

[PureX]

I don't really care about semantics in this case. The believers like me to admit that I have beliefs and I have no problem calling axioms beliefs.
At least they are parsimonious, don't contradict observations and aren't fixed.

Then you aren't proclaiming your "unbelief", I presume, which is much appreciated. However, axioms are axioms whether we 'believe in' them or not. So let's not create any more confusion about them then there already is.

As to the subject of bias and science. It's an interesting dichotomy. On the one hand science is specifically intended to help us overcome our subjective biases, while on the other, the need to do so is based on a subjective bias in favor of an unobtainable ideal called "objective reality". A goal that is inherently contradictory. Don't get me wrong, I think science is an excellent human endeavor that increases our ability to function in the realm of physicality, dramatically. But it's not because it eliminates our bias. It's because it helps us see past our biased misconceptions regarding physical functionality.

 

[PureX]

The world external to me was external to me is exactly as I said. Whether you wish to refer to the realm of the self as a world is a matter for you, but it's a qualitatively different thing to the external world.
An onlooker could say that, but the self can't.

Actually, there is no logical reason that we should have to perceive ourselves as being 'other than' the world around us. And in fact, I predict that if we humans don't destroy ourselves with our technology, we're going to eventually come to perceive ourselves in this more universal, holistic way. As localized events taking place within the context of a much larger event, and that, likewise within the context of a larger event, still. Macro and microcosm meeting within us. And within everything. Quantum physicality is going to change our awareness in ways we can't even imagine, now. If we survive long enough to understand it.

 

[blü 2]

You can't with your senses understand the word "self".

You can understand the word "self" through your senses. You can try applying it to your self, and get feedback from your mirror and from the people around you. But as Robbie Burns said in his poem "To a Louse" ─

O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae mony a blunder free us,

An' foolish notion:​

 

[blü 2]

Actually, there is no logical reason that we should have to perceive ourselves as being 'other than' the world around us.

As long as humans individually can't share the thoughts and feelings of others directly, but only through sensory input, what real choice is there? Even bees and ants recognize self and other.

 

[McBell]

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!

I am some what confused.

The thread seems to be going along the lines of "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to observe it, did it actually fall"
But then the thread seems to go further and seeks to determine if the tree actually existed in the first place, if no one was around to observe it.
But then the question is what of evidence of the tree falling, like a rotting tree trunk, but what if this tree fell a thousand years ago?
If no one was around to see it fall...
But then the thread gets into that what is seen is not reality in the first place...
which if true, then there is really nothing but what is perceived and reality does not exist at all.
Now if reality does not exist at all, then what is science measuring, observing, etc.?
the only conclusion would be a mass illusion/delusion, right?
I mean if science tests and observations, etc. can be replicated by multiple persons at different times and places....

 

[PureX]

As long as humans individually can't share the thoughts and feelings of others directly, but only through sensory input, what real choice is there? Even bees and ants recognize self and other.

Natural inclinations are not logical impediments. In fact, a significant factor in being human is the ability to rise above such natural inclinations. And hopefully, if we survive the transition, we will continue to transcend our animal inclinations, and limitations. Especially when we finally come to understand the fundamentals of existence, better.

 

[blü 2]

Natural inclinations are not logical impediments.

Impediments to what, exactly?

In fact, a significant factor in being human is the ability to rise above such natural inclinations.

Other animals do it too, of course, not least gregarious ones, but also solo ones in respect of raising their young.

And hopefully, if we survive the transition, we will continue to transcend our animal inclinations, and limitations.

All our inclinations, including such aspirational inclinations as you mention, are animal inclinations because we are animals, no?

Especially when we finally come to understand the fundamentals of existence, better.

In case we're on different pages here, what "fundamentals of existence" are you referring to?

For example, I don't think there is any 'purpose' to the universe's existence, and indeed only living critters have purposes / desires / intentions. I don't think there's any objective 'purpose' to human life unless we attach that label to Darwinian surviving and breeding, which is what we, along with all other living things, have evolved for. The rest is what we make of it ─ an area in which we might find substantial agreement, but drawing on our evolved moral responses as gregarious primates.

Or do you mean something else?

 

[gnostic]

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

No, it is about what we believe.

“Objective reality” is nature, which is physical, and it is “what is”.

Therefore nature or reality is something that is observable and measurable and testable.

Science is merely a methodology in explaining nature (reality), and be able to observe and test the explanations against what is already there (nature).

Nature is objective reality. It is there regardless if we believe or don’t believe in it, or understand or don’t understand it.

Science is attempt to understand nature, and to explain it accordingly on what available evidence there are. The testing part in science will either eliminate or refute explanations that are not true, but if they are true, then the evidence should verify the explanations.

Since science is human endeavor, and therefore the formulated model can be potentially be right or potentially be wrong, but you won’t know that until you can test the model - and testing required evidence.

In most philosophies, philosophers often make the mistakes that their reasoning are sound and reliable without the needs for objective testing.

Sciences, especially natural sciences or physical sciences, no models are true, until they have been tested and verified, rigorously and repeatedly. Therefore models can be discarded if the evidence and data refute the models.