Objectivity and scientism

[Polymath257]

Oh yeah. It is coming back. The definition of words and the connection to the rest of the world.
I define Polymath257 to mean non-existence and if you do it differently, it is meaningless. This has nothing to do with the fact the act of defining words are subjective and so is meaningless, it is subjective.
Now I would like the scientific physical measurement standard for meaningless.
You are playing philosophy and playing with words. Have you checked if all positive metaphysics is indeed subjective and not objective?

The term 'natural', as typically used, is ill defined. Do you at least agree with that?

if not, please define it precisely.

'Defining words' does not produce knowledge. At best, it aggregates concepts to allow us to find patterns that can be tested. So, no, 'defining words' is neither subjective nor objective: it is simply a cultural policy.

Have I checked if *all* positive metaphysics is subjective? Of course not. So, give me an example of some that is not.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The term 'natural', as typically used, is ill defined. Do you at least agree with that?

if not, please define it precisely.

'Defining words' does not produce knowledge. At best, it aggregates concepts to allow us to find patterns that can be tested. So, no, 'defining words' is neither subjective nor objective: it is simply a cultural policy.

Have I checked if *all* positive metaphysics is subjective? Of course not. So, give me an example of some that is not.

I need you to clarity something? Are you a scientific realist including meta-physics?

 

[Tambourine]

Objectivity is a fairly nebulous concept that is poorly understood by a lot of people, and so tends to have a wide range of different, sometimes mutually exclusive, meanings depending on who you talk to and what the subject is.

Just as a fairly high brow example, "objective" as understood by journalists (a standpoint that does not take side in a dispute) has very little to do with the scientist understanding of "objective" (a type of knowledge that corresponds to physical objects), let alone, say, a film student's idea of it (the "objective" being the equipment that produces the image that is being shown on film).

 

[Polymath257]

I need you to clarity something? Are you a scientific realist including meta-physics?

Well, the term 'scientific realism' is a rather controversial one in itself, subject to several competing potential definitions.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/

I would say that science attempts to find better and better approximations to how the world works that is independent of our minds. That does not necessarily include classical 'realism' as its foundation. For example, classical realism in quantum mechanics is known to be false (idealism is also false, but that doesn't require quantum mechanics to know).

I see metaphysics as being the philosophical attempts to understand questions concerning what is means to exist, how we know things, etc. So, in some senses, science is the answer to those questions of metaphysics.

Philosophy, in general, is best when it is exploring the consequences of assumptions while not claiming to have any answers. It helps to clarify our thoughts (when it at its best), but is ultimately incapable of finding answers.

That is because finding answers requires observation and testing. Pure logic is incapable, without observational input, to find things out about the real world.

 

[shunyadragon]

You know what?

Scientific realism, it is.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/#ThreDimeRealComm


Now it gets old. There is at least one human, in a site you have used, who connects science and metaphysics.



So you lost. On a site you used as authoritative there is a entry about scientific realism and how that is connected to metaphysics.
Science is a human cultural and social construct in part and not everybody understand science like you do.

What science is as science, is not objective. It is inter-subjective and thus a social, cultural construct.
There is no scientific theory, which gives evidence for science. What science is, belongs in philosophy.
That is why the site you used to argue from is this:
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

You have left science and entered philosophy. Your idea of science is a subset of philosophy. But it is not the only version of science around.
In practice it is even more wide than these 3, but they are always interconnected as how a given human including me and you "weighs" the importance of religion, philosophy and science and how a given human combines them as "positives" and "negatives".

Keep digging your hole deeper without responding to my specific references on how science is fundamentally defined in terms of objectivity.

Go back to your ancient Agrippa skepticism your responses have no constructive value on how science functions in the contemporary world.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

That is because finding answers requires observation and testing. Pure logic is incapable, without observational input, to find things out about the real world.

Observation of what? Testing of what? And what is the what in terms of realism and metaphysics.

I wonder, if it is raining. I want to test it so I look out the window and see rain, What is rain in regards to realism and metaphysics?
Is the rain independent of the mind and there in itself in the strong sense of realism and metaphysics?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Keep digging your hole deeper without responding to my specific references on how science is fundamentally defined in terms of objectivity.

Go back to your ancient Agrippa skepticism your responses have no constructive value on how science functions in the contemporary world.

Nice one. You claim a site and I use the same site and then you ignore it when I use it and cling to Agrippa's Trilemma, I give you Agrippa's trilemma. You got that one and then I use the site you used:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/...is a positive,world described by the sciences.
Your move.

 

[Polymath257]

Observation of what? Testing of what? And what is the what in terms of realism and metaphysics.

Observation of anything that you care to try to observe. And testing of all ideas proposed as explanations of those observations.

I wonder, if it is raining. I want to test it so I look out the window and see rain, What is rain in regards to realism and metaphysics?

I don't understand your question. You look out the window and see water falling from the sky. That is what it means to be raining. Now, you can question whether there actually is water, and that can be tested in a number of ways. You can question whether it is actually falling, and that can be tested in a number of other ways.

Is the rain independent of the mind and there in itself in the strong sense of realism and metaphysics?

Yes, of course it is. It is raining whether or not you look. All that your observation did is make you aware of the fact that it is raining. That rain exists independently of your mind.

 

[shunyadragon]

Nice one. You claim a site and I use the same site and then you ignore it when I use it and cling to Agrippa's Trilemma, I give you Agrippa's trilemma. You got that one and then I use the site you used:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/#:~:text=Scientific realism is a positive,world described by the sciences.
Your move.

Any relationship with between metaphysics and science is peripheral and does not impact the basic facts of science that I cited, and you ignore, that defines science in terms of objectivity not subjectivity as defined as 'opinion,' and philosophy without objective verifiable evidence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

Yes, of course it is. It is raining whether or not you look. All that your observation did is make you aware of the fact that it is raining. That rain exists independently of your mind.

Okay, you are doing positive metaphysics. More tomorrow.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Any relationship with between metaphysics and science is peripheral and does not impact the basic facts of science that I cited, and you ignore, that defines science in terms of objectivity not subjectivity as defined as 'opinion,' and philosophy without objective verifiable evidence.

What is evidence about?

 

[shunyadragon]

What is evidence about?

Evidence can be in different forms. The evidence that is the foundation of science is the objective verifiable evidence concerning the nature of our physical existence that is verifiable, consistent, and predictable over time and place that it can be used to falsify theories and hypothesis.

An example of types of evidence is the evidence that is relevant in a court of law.

By the way when you referred to 'ought' in a previous post you crossed the line in the claim of the objective versus subjective nature of morals and ethics.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Evidence can be in different forms. The evidence that is the foundation of science is the objective verifiable evidence concerning the nature of our physical existence that is verifiable, consistent, and predictable over time and place that it can be used to falsify theories and hypothesis.

An example of types of evidence is the evidence that is relevant in a court of law.

By the way when you referred to 'ought' in a previous post you crossed the line in the claim of the objective versus subjective nature of morals and ethics.

So you do metaphysics and ontology as per our physical existence. Of course by physical expedience you might mean phenomenology or otherwise clarify. But as it stands you do positive metaphysics and ontology.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Evidence can be in different forms. The evidence that is the foundation of science is the objective verifiable evidence concerning the nature of our physical existence that is verifiable, consistent, and predictable over time and place that it can be used to falsify theories and hypothesis.

An example of types of evidence is the evidence that is relevant in a court of law.

By the way when you referred to 'ought' in a previous post you crossed the line in the claim of the objective versus subjective nature of morals and ethics.

BTW please explain more about this bold one

 

[Polymath257]

Okay, you are doing positive metaphysics. More tomorrow.

Well, I am certainly not a positivist in the sense of Carnap, for example.

 

[shunyadragon]

BTW please explain more about this bold one

You need to explain . . .

How dare you claim that knowledge is limited!

Further what truth is, is also subjective.

Science makes no effort to determine 'Truth.'

I believe that @Polymath257 responded well to the problem of metaphysics and science. Metaphysical Naturalism is not science.

The knowledge of science is indeed limited by the limits of objective verifiable evidence.

 

[shunyadragon]

BTW please explain more about this bold one

Sorry, I balive I saw this in another thread. Nonetheless.

Evidence can be in different forms. The evidence that is the foundation of science is the objective verifiable evidence concerning the nature of our physical existence that is verifiable, consistent, and predictable over time and place that it can be used to falsify theories and hypothesis.

An example of types of evidence is the evidence that is relevant in a court of law.

 

[shunyadragon]

I reviewed this and thought I would respond in more detail. Out of frustration I missed some stuff.

@shunyadragon

I am not talking about science as done by scientists. I am in effect talk about a folk understanding of science.
Now to spot in practice scientism for what the everything/reality/the world/the universe is, it comes in some connected variants of everything/reality/the world/the universe is objective or physical/material/natural. Of course it then connects to evidence, logic, proof, truth and knowledge. I.e. e.g. science including logic is the only form of knowledge and the only way to understand how everything/reality/the world/the universe works.

The real issue is how scientists do science, and not the folk? understanding of science. As a geologist of 50 years I am familiar with the layman's view of science. It is rather two dimensional,On and often colored by religious agendas and misinformation. On th eother hand scientist tend to be a clannish bunch indifferent to the layman's understanding of science.

Now if you hold that scientism is not in practice an actual intellectual school of thought and rather it is a loose combination of folk understanding you can learn to spot it.
The main element is the different versions of how from here not anymore everything/reality/the world/the universe, but simply the world. Namely that the world is objective. It is connected to real sometimes as only the objective is real, the world is real, the world is physical and only the physical is the real.In other words it ends here with variation:

This a bit of a mine field I cannot respond to.

Evidence, truth, proof, logic, rationality, objectivity, the material/physical/natural is all rolled in to one as to the effect of: Science is the only way to understand how the world works.

Drop proof and Truth from your list, because scientists are indifferent to these concepts. Yes, mathematics is concerned with theorems and proofs, but from the scientist view math represents one of the tool boxes for science.

Now let me show you in practice where it goes wrong. To know something, you have to test it. The only way you can test something and figure out how it works is by using science.
The answer is no. If you want to test how something works objectively you have to use science and/or logic.

OK, maybe, but a bit unclear.

If you want to test how you get a better life you have to use in part subjectivity. It is not that you can't be informed by science in the broad sense, but it is that a good life for you is subjective in part, because it is for you. That is what makes it subjective.

You are drifting here into the subjective world and not science.

In the folk Scientism,

This where you loose me in any discussion of science.

. . . .in the idea that everything can be figured out using science and in practice it usually connects to strong metaphysical naturalism.

Actually Metaphysical Naturalism is indeed a philosophical consideration and claim where science cannot go, and in reality not folk scientism, which most layman don't believe. This i the realm of intellectual atheism and agnosticism.

Do actual scientists do scientism? Well, yes and no. You could properly find a few, who do it.

No.

Here is one example:
Science and Morals: Can morality be deduced from the facts of science? – The New Behaviorism

Here as I described you drifted over into a questionable understanding of science, morals and ethics, and the behavioral sciences. Fundamentally the objective scientific methodology does apply here, but it represents a very complex subject that deals with these subjects objectively and very cautious on making hypothesis that may be falsified. There is a great deal of 'phony science' here on the fringe that is not science and a much deeper discussion.

So that is the core: "...belief in anything that cannot be scientifically proved, i.e., faith, “is one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate…""
If you learn to spot that one in all its variants, it always ends here. You only need to do science, because it is possible to only hold beliefs, which are scientifically proven.
That is scientism.

Regards
Mikkel

This where I disagree in sound academic science does not tread here.

 

[blü 2]

Further what truth is, is also subjective.

Yes, starting with the observation that it has several definitions, and in many cases no clear definition.

But for science, medicine, and even the more jumbled corridors of the law, the 'correspondence' definition is the usual one ─ truth is a quality of statements and a statement is true to the extent that it corresponds with / accurately reflects objective reality (ie the world external to the self). Thus there is in principle a test for what is true, and the test is the best we can devise to maximize objectivity.

So, depending on context, the significance of the subjective element of truth can be overstated.

 

[Nimos]

You smuggled morality in there.

Not sure in what way you believe that what I wrote had anything to do with morality?

Premise: There are objective factors in what makes a life a life.
Conclusion. Therefore it is good to have a live in an objective sense.

Don't think I follow you here.

If I wrote the following would that be equally true to what you wrote:

Premise: It is an objective fact that for an ice cream to exists, there need to be ice.
Conclusion: Therefore it is good that ice exists from the perspective of an ice cream.

That is basically how I understand what you are writing, did I misunderstand that?

I am a life, objective fact. Therefore I ought to live.

But I don't think that is true.. first of all you were never really given the choice, and furthermore just because you are alive, doesn't mean that you have a desire to live. You could have been born with a terrible disease or some other issues, which makes you value death more than life.

From the fact that I live, doesn't not follow that I ought to live on or have a good life.

Due to the typo, im not sure what exactly you mean, as you might mean either. so if I misunderstood you, let me know.

Nothing really ought to follow life other than death I think. Obviously there are some survival instincts which could probably be said to be objectively truth. But I think the issue is that you haven't defined what you mean with "good life". Because a mass murdered might see what they are doing as living the good life. But that is probably not what the majority of people think.

So good life might not mean a long life, it could just as well mean a short but very fulfilling one. which again could be based on desires/dislikes, which is why I asked about it using the pizza example. Because, let's assume that we could measure a human life in 100 events or what to call them, based on desires and dislikes. Desires covering everything which increases your happiness and dislikes everything that lowers it.

Would the "Good life" then be achieved if a person had 90 fulfilled desires and only 10 dislikes, or how many do they need in regards for it to be considered to living the good life or how do you define it in what you are writing? Because it not very clear, if it is based on desires/dislikes as in my example, then clearly a mass murder might actually live the good life based on his standards.

If I want to live, subjective desire, then there are in part objective things I have to do, but also subjective things I have to do.

I would agree with that.