[Prometheus The Supremo]

This would be a case of common perception.

To assume that you are perceiving some form of absolute "reality" based on your sense perceptions alone is going a little far. Before making such a claim, you might first want to first provide an exact definition of "reality." You may find it to be a rather difficult concept to define.

gristle, am i really having a textual conversation with you? is this real? my friend says it's real. is he real? is this computer real? am i real? is anything real?

 

[Hipster Duck]

but how are you certain that uncertainty is a certainty?

Since no human methods are certain to definitively prove that uncertainty is a certainty or that certainty is a certainty, we remain, by definition, uncertain. You will notice that this condition is our natural position from which we cannot escape.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

hipster, if i ever try peyote, will you be my trip sitter?

 

[wonderboy416]

Gristle makes a very good point when he says that that essentially renders science a religion, so wonderboy is essentially a "religious" man - in the true sense (pun) of the word - arguing against another kind of (formal) religion.l

So science is a religion now? It's a framework based on verifiable evidence. Religion is the complete opposite.
I believe that people who take their religious beliefs are stupid, so there for I believe that I am also stupid because I believe something that can actually be demonstrated and tested, and repeated right in front of my eyes?
They are vastly different, which is why no one could ever have science listed in any type of reputable reference book as a "religion".

On second thought, religion navigates away from being totally static, too. Religions periodically update their "rules" (although much slower than science does) and there is always the option to break away and found a new religion if you're unhappy with what you have.

Try telling this to a fundamentalist...
Religion only bends when science and social progression leave it no choice.
Science only bends when it is updated by... physical evidence.
Again, a world of difference between the two.

To assume that you are perceiving some form of absolute "reality" based on your sense perceptions alone is going a little far. Before making such a claim, you might first want to first provide an exact definition of "reality." You may find it to be a rather difficult concept to define.

True, but if everyone who entered the room independently of one another would describe it in exactly the same way (without any prior influences) then I would assume that's a pretty "real" account of what was in the room. Yes, we see and encounter things as only humans do, but I balk at the notion that we cannot understand "reality" or the true nature of things. Since coming out of the dark ages (ie... a period where church and state were not separated) and into the scientific revolution things on this planet have become remarkably more clear than ever before... we'll never truly understand our world 100%, but to make statements that imply that humans are incapable of being rational and that scientific discovery is probably false is utterly absurd to me.

Since no human methods are certain to definitively prove that uncertainty is a certainty or that certainty is a certainty, we remain, by definition, uncertain. You will notice that this condition is our natural position from which we cannot escape.

I'm certain I'm typing on my computer a response to your message, just as I'm certain that if I crap my pants I'll have a big mess on my hands.

I guess I'm some sort of all mighty being for being so damn certain about things.
When I'm certain about something but end up being wrong then I've used poor judgement in doing so... but when I'm certain I'm more right than wrong, as are most people.
Certainty certainly does exist in the human world, if you say it doesn't perhaps you need to look up the word in a dictionary (may I suggest an online one?)

 

[gristle]

gristle, am i really having a textual conversation with you? is this real? my friend says it's real. is he real? is this computer real? am i real? is anything real?

Reread my post. If you want to believe that your conversational notion of reality is all there is, then go right ahead. But don't assume that your particular subjective experience is somehow superior to others.

Sure, you are consciously engaging in a real conversation. Nevertheless, I doubt you can provide a complete explication of your consciousness (how it works, what it is), nor can you explain the full physical features of reality.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

... don't assume that your particular subjective experience is somehow superior to others.

Sure, you are consciously engaging in a real conversation. Nevertheless, I doubt you can provide a complete explication of your consciousness (how it works, what it is), nor can you explain the full physical features of reality.

i don't believe my subjective experiences are superior to others. that is usually what psychics or people who claim to talk to god believe. in fact, i've been stating the opposite. i'm not special.

i never said i can explain the full features of reality and by the same token, whatever i don't understand, i don't say it came from god.

 

[Hipster Duck]

I'm certain I'm typing on my computer a response to your message, just as I'm certain that if I crap my pants I'll have a big mess on my hands.

I guess I'm some sort of all mighty being for being so damn certain about things.
When I'm certain about something but end up being wrong then I've used poor judgement in doing so... but when I'm certain I'm more right than wrong, as are most people.
Certainty certainly does exist in the human world, if you say it doesn't perhaps you need to look up the word in a dictionary (may I suggest an online one?)

Gristle has already talked about perception standing in for reality based on lived experience, many of which are reproducible. I'd like to introduce the concept of rules and structures which bound experience such that reproducibility becomes almost inevitable. Just like you can apply rules to a game of baseball to ensure that all people play the same game, you can apply rules to human processes and cognition to ensure that reproducibility is achieved. Science is intricately well organized by formal rules (beginning with the scientific method), norms and structures that dictate how one should perform science, so reproducibility is a fairly engineered outcome of this structuration. You are certain that what you type on your keyboard will be seen on your screen because the whole process, including your cognition, is highly structured; shitting your pants is the same.

re: verifiability, a thing that you seem very hell-bent on proving exists in the scientific world.

According to Nancy Cartwright, many of the laws of physics - which underpin and structure the rest of the scientific establishment - are indeed laws, but only if they operate in a perfect vacuum in total isolation from all other naturally-occurring phenomena. This is analogous to applying the most strict rules and structuration; in a sense engineering our environment for complete verifiability. But beyond proving the verifiability of physical laws, what else would this sort of experiment achieve? We don't live in vacuums, and what good is the need to prove that something can be verifiable in an environment that we will never find ourselves in? Since this theoretical environment would be a construct, we are essentially not proving anything in the natural world beyond the fact that we can prove our own first principles.

 

[wonderboy416]

Hipster,

How would you respond to the classification of the different properties of matter?
Mass, Weight, Inertia, Porosity, Form, Volume, Impenetrability.

Are these human constructs? Do you think another intelligent life-form on a life-sustaining planet such as our own would find completely different properties?

Humans did not invent volume, or mass, we discovered it, created definitions (which are open to modification) and continued on classifying other distinct properties as we discovered them. These are not human constructs, they are properties that are there and would behave as they would with or without humans and would be discoverable by any intelligent life form on this planet or otherwise. We're learning more and more about how all of these different properties interact in the limitless number of potential environments in the universe as well. To imply that these are simply limited to humans is to imply that if there is other life it would have a vastly different interpretation. I care not for philosophical rhetoric, it does nothing to aid human progress when it comes to the process of scientific discovery, which benefits all humans tremendously.

Your argument that believing in the scientific process is no different than believing in a religion is just abysmal. We don't live in a vacuum, but we can accurately describe where we do live, and how it differs from our neighboring planets and even solar systems in a matter that is applicable to all known forms of life. This is hugely different from religion which makes no attempt to understand anything and replaces a large, ever-expanding and fascinating explanation with childish fairy tales.

 

[gristle]

How would you respond to the classification of the different properties of matter?
Mass, Weight, Inertia, Porosity, Form, Volume, Impenetrability.

Are these human constructs? Do you think another intelligent life-form on a life-sustaining planet such as our own would find completely different properties?

Humans did not invent volume, or mass, we discovered it, created definitions (which are open to modification) and continued on classifying other distinct properties as we discovered them. These are not human constructs, they are properties that are there and would behave as they would with or without humans and would be discoverable by any intelligent life form on this planet or otherwise. We're learning more and more about how all of these different properties interact in the limitless number of potential environments in the universe as well. To imply that these are simply limited to humans is to imply that if there is other life it would have a vastly different interpretation. I care not for philosophical rhetoric, it does nothing to aid human progress when it comes to the process of scientific discovery, which benefits all humans tremendously.

I know that you are asking Hipster, but I thought I'd chime in.

The measures you list are human constructs. People devised the measurement systems for volume, mass and temperature. Centigrade, Kelvin, centimetres and cubic metres are things that people have created to carry out the act of measurement. Inertia is not a measurement, nor is porosity; but invented systems of measurement can be applied to these properties. It might also be worth reminding you that measurements for temperature were invented before people actually understood what caused changes in temperature. As for mass, the original kilogram is actually losing mass. You can look that little problem up.

I've noticed that you neglected time. The word is thrown around daily as a measure of something. The trouble is that there is no clear understanding of what time is - or if it even exists. Just think about how much value you place on that concept every day.

As for asking about thoughts on what other intelligent life forms might think or feel, such a question is unscientific and merely speculative. No one can know what they would think - or if we could even understand what their communication would be in any such encounter. In fact, you might want to first consider the possibility that other mammals such as dolphins have a complex "language." If they do, we have no clue what they are saying. Maybe they even have some language regarding their own values of measurement. We probably shouldn't worry so much about the thoughts of unproven off-world life forms when we can't even figure out what fellow mammals are saying.

Your argument that believing in the scientific process is no different than believing in a religion is just abysmal. We don't live in a vacuum, but we can accurately describe where we do live, and how it differs from our neighboring planets and even solar systems in a matter that is applicable to all known forms of life. This is hugely different from religion which makes no attempt to understand anything and replaces a large, ever-expanding and fascinating explanation with childish fairy tales.

Sorry to be the first to tell you, but science does start with a belief that nature is comprehensible and that the same laws of physics apply across the entire universe. Given that human beings do not understand nature in full, nor have any of us managed to explore the entire universe in its totality (nor do have a clue of what the ultimate nature of the universe is), we still have to accept that these assumptions are just beliefs. There are good reasons to accept such assumptions as being reasonable, but these assumptions are not based on any body of complete knowledge of the cosmos. It's probably safe to say that our knowledge is impressively dwarfed by what we don't know - and by what we have no clue about not knowing.

Your continued reference to science being equal to religion appears to come from not fully understanding some previous posts. As was pointed out, when people argue that science is truth they are no different from any adherent to a religion. Scientific knowledge is tentative and always open to change. That is not saying that scientific knowledge is junk, or wrong or silly or like a fairy tale. It saying that given how even a small discovery can affect a even larger piece of established knowledge, all scientific knowledge is ultimately tentative because we don't know everything. When considering final answers, there don't appear to be any on the horizon. It is an endless frontier after all.

 

[wonderboy416]

People devised the measurement systems for volume, mass and temperature. Centigrade, Kelvin, centimetres and cubic metres are things that people have created to carry out the act of measurement.

The units of measurement were created yes. What they are measuring... NOT created.
My point is that they are all completely relevant and very useful... and were not created by humans. Man did not create mass, he discovered it then devised many different systems of obtaining the mass. Those are all human constructs, but the mass itself... that was there long before we were. I understand your point, it's just truly useless to think like that, as it has no positive benefit on society and you can make a similar argument for anything in this world, including philosophical thought itself.

Sorry to be the first to tell you, but science does start with a belief that nature is comprehensible and that the same laws of physics apply across the entire universe. Given that human beings do not understand nature in full, nor have any of us managed to explore the entire universe in its totality (nor do have a clue of what the ultimate nature of the universe is), we still have to accept that these assumptions are just beliefs. There are good reasons to accept such assumptions as being reasonable, but these assumptions are not based on any body of complete knowledge of the cosmos. It's probably safe to say that our knowledge is impressively dwarfed by what we don't know - and by what we have no clue about not knowing.

Your continued reference to science being equal to religion appears to come from not fully understanding some previous posts. As was pointed out, when people argue that science is truth they are no different from any adherent to a religion. Scientific knowledge is tentative and always open to change. That is not saying that scientific knowledge is junk, or wrong or silly or like a fairy tale. It saying that given how even a small discovery can affect a even larger piece of established knowledge, all scientific knowledge is ultimately tentative because we don't know everything. When considering final answers, there don't appear to be any on the horizon. It is an endless frontier after all.

I agree with a lot of what you say, but you touch upon the point I'm trying to make.
I'm sure in a thousand years from now (providing we haven't destroyed ourselves) our currently scientific body of knowledge will seem minuscule, and then in another thousand years that body of knowledge will be minuscule and so forth... However they're all building blocks towards unlocking the bigger picture and helping humanity advance and understand our universe. No scientist would tell you that the periodic table isn't subject to change in the future. Religion on the other hand - is rigid and will only change when it becomes even more hopelessly outdated than it is as we have seen in the past. One strives towards discovery and knowledge, the other has its eyes closed, fingers stuck in its ears singing lalalala I can't hear you anytime something flies in the face of its sacred beliefs.

Science tells us that condoms prevent the spread of disease, some religions tell us they spread disease.

Yes, one has to have a belief in order to believe.. but religion is like attending a magic show where the guy comes on stage, describes each trick, then walks off and tells you not to dare question the validity of what he has told. That's vastly different than believing in something that's completely transparent.

 

[gristle]

The units of measurement were created yes. What they are measuring... NOT created.
My point is that they are all completely relevant and very useful... and were not created by humans. Man did not create mass, he discovered it then devised many different systems of obtaining the mass. Those are all human constructs, but the mass itself... that was there long before we were. I understand your point, it's just truly useless to think like that, as it has no positive benefit on society and you can make a similar argument for anything in this world, including philosophical thought itself.

If you take a moment to examine the concept of mass, you will find that scientists are still trying to understand why there is mass in the universe (as in its actual cause for existing in the first place).

No scientist would tell you that the periodic table isn't subject to change in the future. Religion on the other hand - is rigid and will only change when it becomes even more hopelessly outdated than it is as we have seen in the past. One strives towards discovery and knowledge, the other has its eyes closed, fingers stuck in its ears singing lalalala I can't hear you anytime something flies in the face of its sacred beliefs.

At times you have been arguing from a position that tended towards making out science as a form of authoritative power. Then you skirt back into the tentative. With respect to religions, you ought to examine the history of science in order to see the contribution of very large numbers of religious people to that body of knowledge. With respect to religious practitioners, there is a fair amount of revisiting and updating practices.

Oddly enough, it is your own constant comparisons of religion and science that seems to be obscuring the the fact that the two modes of thinking are actually quite different from one and other. You are playing right into the hands of those you oppose. For many dual practitioners, scientific practice is quite different from religious practice. It may not be ideal to you, but if they can accommodate two very different ways of seeing the world, what is wrong with that?

 

[Hipster Duck]

For the last time, wonderboy, nobody is championing religion over science. From here on in, your rebuttals should be focused on debating the bounds of human rationality and our notion that human constructed methods can never fully describe the nature of the universe.

The units of measurement were created yes. What they are measuring... NOT created.

What are we measuring, though? What is mass? What is time? How do we know what we are measuring if we don't even know what it is?

Man did not create mass, he discovered it then devised many different systems of obtaining the mass. Those are all human constructs, but the mass itself... that was there long before we were.

Humans would have had to discover and rationalize mass based on their fallible, human-constructed methods. Our interpretation of what mass and time are gets filtered through human cognition, therefore it cannot be fully understood.

I care not for philosophical rhetoric, it does nothing to aid human progress when it comes to the process of scientific discovery

I imagine words like that followed Socrates to his execution. If you're going to assert your beliefs with such certainty, then you shouldn't stick your head in the sand or, in your own words, "stick your fingers in your ears and sing lalala" if an alternative view that could potentially shatter your own is exposed to you.

 

[wonderboy416]

For the last time, wonderboy, nobody is championing religion over science. From here on in, your rebuttals should be focused on debating the bounds of human rationality and our notion that human constructed methods can never fully describe the nature of the universe.

Then perhaps you should create a thread of your own on that very topic instead of constantly trying to derail this thread which is about creationism vs evolution... not the meaning of life.

What are we measuring, though? What is mass? What is time? How do we know what we are measuring if we don't even know what it is?

That's just silly. What is my foot? How do I know it's even there? Sure it helps me balance and walk, but like seriously dude, what is that thing?

Again, try to out-think reality all you want, it's a pointless and silly exercise because it will do nothing but retard scientific progress which has tremendous potential for positively affecting us all.

Humans would have had to discover and rationalize mass based on their fallible, human-constructed methods. Our interpretation of what mass and time are gets filtered through human cognition, therefore it cannot be fully understood.

Cannot be fully understood as opposed to what? We understand it as it relates to us, all other known objects in this world (living and non-living) and that understanding is expanding out towards the universe. Unless there's some dimension we don't know about that impacts our life in any way, it's all very worthwhile and most certainly not a mis-understanding even if we will never fully comprehend 100% of everything we try to. I truly get your point, as I'm sure many a scientists probably agree with you, just as many think we were created from god. That's all well and good, but it does nothing to help us understand our world other than to think of it in a context that states we can never truly understand it.

I imagine words like that followed Socrates to his execution. If you're going to assert your beliefs with such certainty, then you shouldn't stick your head in the sand or, in your own words, "stick your fingers in your ears and sing lalala" if an alternative view that could potentially shatter your own is exposed to you.

The only theory you're providing is one of doubt... which is fair enough as religion fails to do that much.

You can think long and hard about what it is that makes an object a potato all you want, what human-constructed qualities provide potato-ness - I'll take the scientific explanation with a real world application very much thank you.

 

[gristle]

Then perhaps you should create a thread of your own on that very topic instead of constantly trying to derail this thread which is about creationism vs evolution... not the meaning of life.

Hipster is not making any reference to "meaning of life" tangents. As an aside, what is being raised is your near religious adherence to the idea that your brand of scientific thinking (or thinking about science) is somehow absolute and correct. Add to that, it is you who has continued to propound a false dilemma between evolution and creationism - something that Hipster is not doing, nor am I. Nowhere on this thread has Hipster stated a point of view that supports creationism over evolution. That being said, if that is how you choose to read his posts, then it is your decision based solely on your own prejudices, and not the facts as they appear on this thread.

Again, try to out-think reality all you want, it's a pointless and silly exercise because it will do nothing but retard scientific progress which has tremendous potential for positively affecting us all.

Out think reality? Would you care to provide an explanation as to why your opinion regarding "reality" counts more than others? Once again, you have not exactly described what you mean be "reality" in any detail.

Cannot be fully understood as opposed to what? We understand it as it relates to us, all other known objects in this world (living and non-living) and that understanding is expanding out towards the universe.

The sentence does not really make sense. If you really want to achieve objective knowledge, then the purpose of discovering the characteristics of something like mass ought to have qualities that exceed mere human measure. As for living versus non-living, care to characterize those distinctions more clearly?

The only theory you're providing is one of doubt... which is fair enough as religion fails to do that much.

Doubt is much better than false certainty. For someone who advocates science so heartily, you truly underplay the importance of doubt in science - as in possessing a skeptical frame of mind. Hipster's illustrations concerning the limitations in scientific thinking are not just mere details in the story, they are crucial problems that have become central issues in the philosophy of science.

 

[Hipster Duck]

Then perhaps you should create a thread of your own on that very topic instead of constantly trying to derail this thread which is about creationism vs evolution... not the meaning of life.

This is not a thread about the meaning of life.

I entered this thread and posed a question to you about the validity of science vs. religion in the context of evolution vs. creation. You were absolutely certain that one was hogwash and that the other was a fact. I suggested a logical thought process that deconstructed your argument. After that, the thread took off in its own direction guided, at least half the time, by you. So if the thread got "hijacked", you are at least partly responsible. For the record, I think that the deviation of this thread was both useful and interesting.

That's just silly. What is my foot? How do I know it's even there? Sure it helps me balance and walk, but like seriously dude, what is that thing?

...

Cannot be fully understood as opposed to what? We understand it as it relates to us, all other known objects in this world (living and non-living) and that understanding is expanding out towards the universe. Unless there's some dimension we don't know about that impacts our life in any way, it's all very worthwhile and most certainly not a mis-understanding even if we will never fully comprehend 100% of everything we try to. I truly get your point, as I'm sure many a scientists probably agree with you, just as many think we were created from god. That's all well and good, but it does nothing to help us understand our world other than to think of it in a context that states we can never truly understand it.

Well, we don't need to understand definitively whether energy is a wave or a particle to know that fiber optic cable works, or that a toaster works, or that you can type these words and it will appear on a screen. Within our constructed, bound rationalities with its system of interconnected rules, things seem to work and are reproducible. That doesn't mean that we understand the elemental nature of why things work. This search for an objective truth cannot be fulfilled by science. That's the critical thing you have to understand: that we know something works doesn't mean we understand why it works, and to say that science provides "the answer" is false.

Again, try to out-think reality all you want, it's a pointless and silly exercise because it will do nothing but retard scientific progress which has tremendous potential for positively affecting us all.

It is not a silly exercise. If you are engaged in the act of discovery, you should be as inquisitive as possible and keep on asking "why?" and "how?" as far as you possibly can. I have done this; gristle has done this. Like you, I once thought that science was an objective search for the universe's truth, but the nagging question of "how do we know for sure?" kept prodding me to dig a little deeper. When I thought about how every human endeavour is naturally a human construct subject to the filter of cognition, it became pretty apparent to me that scientific answers could not possibly be a terminal endpoint. It's not just me; virtually any philosopher or post-positivist scientist since the end of the Second World war adheres to this general idea. Believe me, after the ashes of Auschwitz, it was hard to believe that anything could be legitimized by a human-constructed and fallible method of "truth" searching.

Science is great, and I realize that we can land on the moon and fight polio and text message to people half the world away. You should, however, ask "how can we do that?" and "why is it so?" and work deeper and deeper as if you are opening a series of progressively-smaller Russian dolls. If you have reached a point where you don't want to go any further; if you don't have the stomach to open that next Russian doll; if you'd rather just stand on the sidelines and cheer for science regardless of its flaws like it was some kind of sports team, then you, my friend, are an intellectual coward.