Relativism - A truly interesting discussion

[firedragon]

Am I a relativist?
Compared to what?!

The other.

 

[Heyo]

Okay. So how would you prove "scientific realism" through the scientific method?

I wouldn't. 1. The scientific method is explicitly not capable of proving a theory. 2. Realism is an axiom of science. You can't prove axioms in any system.

What the scientific method can do, is disproving a theory. And in any system an axiom can be found to not be compatible with other axioms, making the system inconsistent.
So far, the axioms of science have survived most experiments and proven useful. There are, however, fields of science where the consistency of the axioms is questioned. It may well be that they don't hold for some special cases. (And if that should be the case, it will be found using the scientific method.)

 

[firedragon]

No, we are getting somewhere. So is the NPC universal of all cases as all cases or only localized in some sense?

Its universal. All cases.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I wouldn't. 1. The scientific method is explicitly not capable of proving a theory. 2. Realism is an axiom of science. You can't prove axioms in any system.

What the scientific method can do, is disproving a theory. And in any system an axiom can be found to not be compatible with other axioms, making the system inconsistent.
So far, the axioms of science have survived most experiments and proven useful. There are, however, fields of science where the consistency of the axioms is questioned. It may well be that they don't hold for some special cases. (And if that should be the case, it will be found using the scientific method.)

Well, yes and no! https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

 

[firedragon]

I wouldn't. 1. The scientific method is explicitly not capable of proving a theory. 2. Realism is an axiom of science. You can't prove axioms in any system.

So what is your source of knowledge for this if not "the scientific method"? It was your claim of epistemology.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Its universal. All cases.

Well, no! Not all cases as reduced to the same sense. For a local time, space and sense, yes!

For e.g. the context of 2 humans there is not always the same one context and thus that is the practical limited.

We are playing same, similar and/or different.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The other.

Sorry mate...I couldn't help myself...

 

[firedragon]

Sorry mate...I couldn't help myself...

No worries.

 

[firedragon]

Well, no! Not all cases as reduced to the same sense. For a local time, space and sense, yes!

For e.g. the context of 2 humans there is not always the same one context and thus that is the practical limited.

We are playing same, similar and/or different.

Can there be 2 humans who together are 1?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So what is your source of knowledge for this if not "the scientific method"? It was your claim of epistemology.

Do you get that there is no one correct set of axioms for all of the everyday world?

That is to me the problem of a set of meta set of axioms to decide between 2 different set of axioms. The meta set is also axiomatic. And that leads to an infinite regress of meta-meta and so on. And back to Agrippa's trilemma we are, it would seem.

 

[PureX]

I'm a scientist* and hold to the first axiom of science: the universe is real. (I.e. things in reality exist objectively.)
But once we leave reality pretty much everything else is at best intersubjective and relative (except, maybe, Platonic ideals).

(* not as a profession, but in so far as I hold to the axioms of science and as I think that the scientific method is the best epistemology we have.)

Relativism is the result of our limited perspective within reality, not a lack of objective reality.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Can there be 2 humans who together are 1?

Yes, maybe in some cases, but not all. They can agree or disagree if relevant.

 

[exchemist]

Am I a relativist?
Compared to what?!

 

[Heyo]

So what is your source of knowledge for this if not "the scientific method"? It was your claim of epistemology.

It is the scientific method. All scientific knowledge about the real world is effectively negative knowledge, i.e. we know what can't be. We don't know if the scientific method is the only one or even the best one, we only know that all other methods that have been proposed are worse.
Note also that science and the scientific method are only valid in the realm of the real. The scientific method itself is not a real thing, it belongs to the philosophy of science so it is not subject to itself.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It is the scientific method. All scientific knowledge about the real world is effectively negative knowledge, i.e. we know what can't be. We don't know if the scientific method is the only one or even the best one, we only know that all other methods that have been proposed are worse.
Note also that science and the scientific method are only valid in the realm of the real. The scientific method itself is not a real thing, it belongs to the philosophy of science so it is not subject to itself.

That is relative to what we are doing.

 

[PureX]

Do you get that there is no one correct set of axioms for all of the everyday world?

That is to me the problem of a set of meta set of axioms to decide between 2 different set of axioms. The meta set is also axiomatic. And that leads to an infinite regress of meta-meta and so on. And back to Agrippa's trilemma we are, it would seem.

It is what it is.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It is what it is.

Correct and that applies to us all including you and I. And so for your logic. If I can be illogical, then that is a fact of the everyday world and the limit of logic.

 

[firedragon]

Do you get that there is no one correct set of axioms for all of the everyday world?

That is to me the problem of a set of meta set of axioms to decide between 2 different set of axioms. The meta set is also axiomatic. And that leads to an infinite regress of meta-meta and so on. And back to Agrippa's trilemma we are, it would seem.

That was a question of epistemology. Maybe you didnt understand the question.

 

[PureX]

Correct and that applies to us all including you and I. And so for your logic. If I can be illogical, then that is a fact of the everyday world and the limit of logic.

I was referring to the absolute axiom. "It is what it is."

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That was a question of epistemology. Maybe you didnt understand the question.

Yeah, Agrippa applies to epistemology as the justification of knowledge as far as I can tell.