Relativism - A truly interesting discussion

[firedragon]

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.

I dont think you understand what you are proposing. And you are not answering the question Heyo. You are making a tangent with your epistemology claim and your position. If your epistemology is the scientific method itself, and your position is scientific realism, you are in a tangent. You dont seem to understand that. I will not ask you any further questions on it because obviously you will not give an answer. Nevermind.

Scientific realism is philosophy. It cannot be proven by the scientific method. Even the scientific method is philosophy, and cannot be proven by the scientific method. So your claim to epistemology is absolutely touches all three, circulus in probando, ad infinitum and dogmatic, right on Munchhausen.

Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

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

Agreeing or not is irrelevant. This is about non contradiction. 2 humans cannot be together 1. The whole utterance is a contradiction.

 

[RestlessSoul]

There you go. You just explained your source of knowledge. Honestly it seems to be anyway.

Just a comment. See, being comfortable with paradoxes and contradictions is not acceptance. Anyway, in philosophy PNC is an axiom. Without the principle of non contradiction, one may not get far in any idea. Even the scientific method.

Perhaps. Didn’t Immanuel Kant cover some of that ground, in his Critique of Pure Reason? He referred to philosophical antimonies, whereby thesis and antithesis have equal validity because they are predicated on identical arguments.

It seems to me that without a willingness to leave a certain amount of apparent contradiction unresolved, it would be impossible to make much progress in any direction. This, surely, is the essence of compromise, and there can be no progress of any kind - in science, education, philosophy, politics or theology, nor in our personal development individually or collectively - without a willingness to compromise.

 

[metis]

I'm sorta in-between. Yes, I do believe there are some Truths, no doubt, but there also can be some flexibility as to how we may react to a specific Truth.

For example, if my wife asks me "Does this skirt make my butt look fat?", I have long learned not to say something like "Definitely!".

 

[firedragon]

Perhaps. Didn’t Immanuel Kant cover some of that ground, in his Critique of Pure Reason? He referred to philosophical antimonies, whereby thesis and antithesis have equal validity because they are predicated on identical arguments.

What you are referring is ethics. Its not relevant. Deontology does not violate PNC. In fact, Deontology is discussed via PNC.

It seems to me that without a willingness to leave a certain amount of apparent contradiction unresolved, it would be impossible to make much progress in any direction.

Can you give me an example?

 

[Nimos]

Well. Relativism can in a very very simplistic manner be read out as "no objectivity".

This is a whole world of full of various relativist branches ranging from ethics, human rights, religion, social sciences, cultural studies, human resource management to values. Some people argue for objectivity knowing relativism maybe because of duty or an ought, and the same thing will apply to relativists in the vice versa scenario.

What is your position, why and what is your source of knowledge?

I think it depends on what we are talking about. I think that we can say that something is objectively truth in regards to the material world. For instance a rock is a rock given the physicals properties that such might have.

But for most other things everything is relative to the observer, something is bad if the observer think it is, but might be good from another observers point of view. And since we have no way of verifying whether something is intrinsically good or bad, I would consider it relative to the observer.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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

Yeah, but that is as it is, but useless of the everyday world. It is fun in philosophy, but that is it in practice.

 

[firedragon]

I'm sorta in-between. Yes, I do believe there are some Truths, no doubt, but there also can be some flexibility as to how we may react to a specific Truth.

For example, if my wife asks me "Does this skirt make my butt look fat?", I have long learned not to say something like "Definitely!".

Lol. Well, we all learned that long ago, and maybe even inheriting that from our parents. So the immediate reaction if the wife asks that kind of question is a unthoughtful, no question, no blinking, resounding "no".

But this is also a question on ethics. Objectivity and subjectivity in the question of ethics is a little more than that. But good example. Resonates with any man. But dont tell that to the wife.

 

[firedragon]

I think it depends on what we are talking about. I think that we can say that something is objectively truth in regards to the material world. For instance a rock is a rock given the physicals properties that such might have.

But for most other things everything is relative to the observer, something is bad if the observer think it is, but might be good from another observers point of view. And since we have no way of verifying whether something is intrinsically good or bad, I would consider it relative to the observer.

Thats a reference to ethics. Maybe even problems in consciousness. Wow, That can of worms will kill us all.

I can say one thing though. Subjective experiences does not mean an objective system does not exist. And it would also depend on "is it okay".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Lol. Well, we all learned that long ago, and maybe even inheriting that from our parents. So the immediate reaction if the wife asks that kind of question is a unthoughtful, no question, no blinking, resounding "no".

But this is also a question on ethics. Objectivity and subjectivity in the question of ethics is a little more than that. But good example. Resonates with any man. But dont tell that to the wife.

Okay, go on with ethics and how it is not related in any relevant sense to knowledge.

 

[firedragon]

Okay, go on with ethics and how it is not related in any relevant sense to knowledge.

What?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Can you give me an example?

Here’s one: what is often referred to as the Measurement Problem in Quantum Theory has yet to be resolved, 100 years after being identified. This hasn’t prevented QM from yielding extraordinarily effective predictions which have enabled the development of, for example, the phone I’m holding in my hand right now.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem

 

[pearl]

What is your position, why and what is your source of knowledge?

I really have neither, but offer the following just for the sake of conversation.

Relativism: The Prevailing Philosophy
Relativism has thus become the central problem for the faith at the present time. No doubt it is not presented only with its aspects of resignation before the immensity of the truth. It is also presented as a position defined positively by the concepts of tolerance and knowledge through dialogue and freedom, concepts which would be limited if the existence of one valid truth for all were affirmed.
In turn, relativism appears to be the philosophical foundation of democracy. Democracy in fact is supposedly built on the basis that no one can presume to know the true way, and it is enriched by the fact that all roads are mutually recognized as fragments of the effort toward that which is better. Therefore, all roads seek something common in dialogue, and they also compete regarding knowledge that cannot be compatible in one common form. A system of freedom ought to be essentially a system of positions that are connected with one another because they are relative as well as being dependent on historical situations open to new developments. Therefore, a liberal society would be a relativist society: Only with that condition could it continue to be free and open to the future.

In the area of politics, this concept is considerably right. There is no one correct political opinion. What is relative—the building up of liberally ordained coexistence between people—cannot be something absolute. Thinking in this way was precisely the error of Marxism and the political theologies.

However, with total relativism, everything in the political area cannot be achieved either. There are injustices that will never turn into just things (such as, for example, killing an innocent person, denying an individual or groups the right to their dignity or to life corresponding to that dignity) while, on the other hand, there are just things that can never be unjust. Therefore, although a certain right to relativism in the social and political area should not be denied, the problem is raised at the moment of setting its limits. There has also been the desire to apply this method in a totally conscious way in the area of religion and ethics. I will now try to briefly outline the developments that define the theological dialogue today on this point.
Relativism: The Central Problem for Faith Today (J. Cardinal Ratzinger) - Loyola School of Theology (lst.edu)

 

[firedragon]

Here’s one: what is often referred to as the Measurement Problem in Quantum Theory has yet to be resolved,

Thats not a violation of the law of contradiction.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What?

We are doing everything, right? So how does knowledge relate to ethics in any sense at all? Or are they cases of ontological dualism in the end?

 

[firedragon]

We are doing everything, right? So how does knowledge relate to ethics in any sense at all? Or are they cases of ontological dualism in the end?

I dont know what you are talking about mikkel. What do you mean "knowledge relate to ethics"?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Thats not a violation of the law of contradiction.

It is an example of an unresolved paradox at the heart of a theory, which has not prevented that theory from yielding results in the real world.

The instantaneous collapse of a wave function at the moment of measurement violates both special relativity and the principle of locality, or appears to.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I dont know what you are talking about mikkel. What do you mean "knowledge relate to ethics"?

As I recall it you claim you knew how you knew it up thread the relationship between epistemology and ethics.

 

[firedragon]

It is an example of an unresolved paradox at the heart of a theory, which has not prevented that theory from yielding results in the real world.

The instantaneous collapse of a wave function at the moment of measurement violates both special relativity and the principle of locality, or appears to.

Thats not relevant RS. Its not a logical contradiction. I hope you try and understand.

A logical contradiction is something like a square triangle.

 

[firedragon]

As I recall it you claim you knew how you knew it up thread the relationship between epistemology and ethics.

Ha?

Do you really think I would make such a nonsensical statement? I really really dont know what you are on about mikkel. Come home. You can have some of my tea. I have two types of tea. One for milk, and one for good old plain tea. All good stuff imported from Asia.