• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
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.
If you feel disconnected with anything outside your good self, I just feel sorry for you.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
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. ...

So what does a self look like? What does it feel like trough touch? What happens if I hit it? Does it make a sound? What does it taste like? What does it smell like? What observable properties does it have as per objective?
- of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.
-having reality independent of the mind.
Definition of OBJECTIVE

What is a self as having reality independent of the mind?
Further for science: What is the measurable dimensions of a self? What is the physical properties as observable? What scientific measurement standards is a self measure in? What is the scientific theory of a self? Would you please reference a scientific peer-reviewed site, where I can read about the self in natural/hard science terms? Not just words, but actual natural/hard science!!!

Now I know you can't do that! So it follows that you believe in something, which is not true and supernatural in the following sense: Not a part of the physical, natural observable universe.
In effect you are a believer in non-science, in something without evidence and without reason, because you believe in something against your own rule of only having beliefs about the world based on evidence.
But the self is without evidence. So in effect you are a woo-woo believer. ;) :D
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
So what does a self look like?
It arises from a complex of the biochemical and bioelectrical dynamics of the brain. You can no more see it ─ it no more looks like a thing, from the sensory input point of view ─ than a memory (as distinct, sometimes from the contents of that memory) does.
What is a self as having reality independent of the mind?
I don't use the word 'mind' in contexts like this ─ it's too fluffy, too vague. But the self arises from ─ that is, is dependent on ─ the brain's dynamics.
What is the physical properties as observable? What scientific measurement standards is a self measure in?
I don't know, but since brain research is ongoing and the sense of self is related to consciousness, I don't doubt we'll have an effective description of it before too long.
In effect you are a believer in non-science.
I'm simply a materialist, and hold with science ─ whereas you're a supernaturalist and hold with woo.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
...
I don't know, but since brain research is ongoing and the sense of self is related to consciousness, I don't doubt we'll have an effective description of it before too long.
...

That is a belief without evidence and reason, because it could be that it is not possible.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
That is a belief without evidence and reason, because it could be that it is not possible.
It's built into my assumptions: A world exists external to me / A world exists external to the self.

An assumption, as I keep pointing out, that you share.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
It's built into my assumptions: A world exists external to me / A world exists external to the self.

An assumption, as I keep pointing out, that you share.

No, my assumption is that I am in the world as a part of that world and that world to me is the same as independent of me. I.e. the world is real.
I don't do existence. I do relationships. I am in a relationship with the rest of world and it doesn't exist, because I don't believe in existence.
If the world is external to you, you are not in the world, so you exist in the non-world. You are non-existence in regards to the world.
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
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!







You have defined Objective reality and Metaphysics. but not Science.
We have rather limited methods of observation, but these are being expanded in scope exponentially.
There may indeed be ways to observe non empirical events and entities.
If and when these become available to us then Scientific enquiry will expand in to the region of Metaphical reality.
Objective reality is only limited by the means of observation available.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
You have defined Objective reality and Metaphysics. but not Science.
We have rather limited methods of observation, but these are being expanded in scope exponentially.
There may indeed be ways to observe non empirical events and entities.
If and when these become available to us then Scientific enquiry will expand in to the region of Metaphical reality.
Objective reality is only limited by the means of observation available.

What is Science?
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Nature is objective reality. It is there regardless if we believe or don’t believe in it, or understand or don’t understand it.
But our experience and understanding of it is always subjective, because we are the 'subjects' experiencing and understanding it. The experience and understanding are subject to us: to our limitations in time, space, biology, technology, and cognition. And it is never not subject to these.

So logically, that "objective reality" that we insist is there, is forever beyond our reach. We pretend to ourselves that by learning how to function within it, we then "know it". But even that presumption is a subjective bias. Often, it's a bias so fully adhered to that people cannot even see 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.
But the test will not determine a theory right or wrong, as any scientist will attest. It will only tell us if the theory functions within the parameters of the experiment we devised to test it. Because that's all the experiment can ever test: relative function. Relative function. And relative function does not equate to objective truth. Which is the gigantic misconception that a great many modern humans have fallen into.
In most philosophies, philosophers often make the mistakes that their reasoning are sound and reliable without the needs for objective testing.
That's because they understand the profound limitations and propensity for bias in "objective testing" as a means of reaching for truth.
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.
This is a perfect illustration of the bias and misconception of presuming functionality equates to true understanding. A bias so strong, these days, that I dare say no matter what I write, you, and many others here, will refuse to recognize it as such.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Then why do you need your senses to know about that world?

Now you use one of these subjective, personal, self, without truth and evidence words: "Need". I need science from you and nothing else. None of this subjectivity. You learn to use nothing but your your truth or if you can't, you learn from it. Learn, that you in effect in every post you make, break your own rule of truth for words.
The word "need" has no objective referent.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Now you use one of these subjective, personal, self, without truth and evidence words: "Need". I need science from you and nothing else. None of this subjectivity. You learn to use nothing but your your truth or if you can't, you learn from it. Learn, that you in effect in every post you make, break your own rule of truth for words.
The word "need" has no objective referent.
You didn't answer my question.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
No, We stop here for now. You don't follow your own rule of objective corresponce truth, so I have learn what I can from you.

You have an incoherent belief system just like all other humans including me.
You keep failing to understand ─ when I come to speak of my own sense of self, there's no objective state of affairs for it to correspond to, hence no truth test for it. "Objective" refers to the world that I assume exists external to me and that I learn about through my senses. I don't learn about my sense of self through my senses.

I've said all that before.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
You keep failing to understand ─ when I come to speak of my own sense of self, there's no objective state of affairs for it to correspond to, hence no truth test for it. "Objective" refers to the world that I assume exists external to me and that I learn about through my senses. I don't learn about my sense of self through my senses.

I've said all that before.

Leave it be. We believe differently. Which means I don't use reason. Fair enough. I don't care for your subjective thoughts and what not as you don't care for mine.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
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....
ROTFLMAO

I was hoping someone would at least attempt to help me out.


But the crickets speak volumes....
 
Top