Myths about reality

[Kittyinpink]

I think there is basically only one major reason that anyone believes this to be impossible... namely, the assumption that genuine understanding requires the acquisition of external ontological information.

Seeing "external ontological information" as being constructed by humanity, like technology, rather undermines this assumption. Surely, to whatever extent there can be said to be a "truth of reality", it will not be made any clearer through studying our own somewhat arbitrary creations.

I suggest a better approach is to study the mechanisms by which we experience, investigate, and form conclusions about reality... recognizing that such mechanisms have much power to shape the experience of reality... and furthermore, that any notion of "true reality beneath experience" falls into the category of constructed ideas (or "mental technologies").

Notably, this approach has always been available at every point in history.

In a way, reading your post just now , reminds me of that saying "can a falling tree be heard in the woods if no one is there to listen!?" (Hehehe! I deliberately misquoted!! , but for a reason - How do any of us really know if our technology and our perception is plausible? , we justify ourselves by judging our environment and technology . We do this, using our obviously limited and flawed observations.)

 

[mistykitty]

In a way, reading your post just now , reminds me of that saying "can a falling tree be heard in the woods if no one is there to listen!?" (Hehehe! I deliberately misquoted!! , but for a reason - How do any of us really know if our technology and our perception is plausible? , we justify ourselves by judging our environment and technology . We do this, using our obviously limited and flawed observations.)

part of it is because our minds don't like admitting they don't know some things so they just invent explanations until a true answer is found. perception is a sound but flawed process because we perceive a lot of things but the brain quickly determines it's usefulness in a situation and decides yes or no so things you don't pay focused attention to often you don't notice because the brain deems them irrelevant so you may or may not percieve them

 

[SleepyTyrant]

Is this just postmodernism?

 

[Sapphyre]

Is this just postmodernism?

I had to do some reading to compare... I normally hear of postmodernism in a sociopolitical or moral context. But at a glance (feel free to correct me if I misunderstood!), the epistemological side of postmodernism suggests that all truth is purely relative, whereas Drifter has been clear about believing in an inexpressible ultimate truth (and I have said nothing which contradicts this). So that would seem to be a major point of difference, if I am not mistaken.

 

[SleepyTyrant]

I had to do some reading to compare... I normally hear of postmodernism in a sociopolitical or moral context. But at a glance (feel free to correct me if I misunderstood!), the epistemological side of postmodernism suggests that all truth is purely relative, whereas Drifter has been clear about believing in an inexpressible ultimate truth (and I have said nothing which contradicts this). So that would seem to be a major point of difference, if I am not mistaken.

Ahkay

 

[SleepyTyrant]

I had to do some reading to compare... I normally hear of postmodernism in a sociopolitical or moral context. But at a glance (feel free to correct me if I misunderstood!), the epistemological side of postmodernism suggests that all truth is purely relative, whereas Drifter has been clear about believing in an inexpressible ultimate truth (and I have said nothing which contradicts this). So that would seem to be a major point of difference, if I am not mistaken.

As tiny has pointed out that is contradictory.
Drifter also said truth is subjective.
Unfortunately, the issue with that is it doesn't make any sense.

The scientific method completely goes out the window in a world of subjective truth. Without objective truth reality can't be reliably measured. Hypotheses can't be reliably falsified. Peer review would have no value.

 

[mistykitty]

As tiny has pointed out that is contradictory.
Drifter also said truth is subjective.
Unfortunately, the issue with that is it doesn't make any sense.

The scientific method completely goes out the window in a world of subjective truth. Without objective truth reality can't be reliably measured. Hypotheses can't be reliably falsified. Peer review would have no value.

i like your ideas here so maybe it is more like there is an objective truth but perceptions of it are subjective to some degree

 

[Drifter]

I suggest a better approach is to study the mechanisms by which we experience, investigate, and form conclusions about reality... r

Isn't this exactly what Descartes did? As I understand it, he basically concluded all of our known mechanisms for understanding reality were faulty. He built on that conclusion to 'prove' the existence of God.

... and furthermore, that any notion of "true reality beneath experience" falls into the category of constructed ideas (or "mental technologies").

I agree. I believe that all beliefs fall into the category of constructed ideas (aka: words), including the belief that the scientific method is the best approach to understanding reality, and the beliefs that God exists or doesn't exist. But without beliefs, I'm left with no perceivable foundation for my inquiry into the true nature of reality. Maybe that is the way it's 'supposed' to be.

 

[mistykitty]

Isn't this exactly what Descartes did? As I understand it, he basically concluded all of our known mechanisms for understanding reality were faulty. He built on that conclusion to 'prove' the existence of God.

I agree. I believe that all beliefs fall into the category of constructed ideas (aka: words), including the belief that the scientific method is the best approach to understanding reality, and the beliefs that God exists or doesn't exist. But without beliefs, I'm left with no perceivable foundation for my inquiry into the true nature of reality. Maybe that is the way it's 'supposed' to be.

i like that perspective because if you think about it if we truly understood everything about reality there would be no reason to ask questions and explore it.

 

[Kittyinpink]

As tiny has pointed out that is contradictory.
Drifter also said truth is subjective.
Unfortunately, the issue with that is it doesn't make any sense.

The scientific method completely goes out the window in a world of subjective truth. Without objective truth reality can't be reliably measured. Hypotheses can't be reliably falsified. Peer review would have no value.

I get that! ... but there is definitely more to understand! We (20 century folk) simply don't know or have the tech to understand yet!! , gosh! Its all so exciting!!

 

[Drifter]

Drifter also said truth is subjective.

Sorry for the confusion. What I mean by that is that most people's take on truth is based on their personal beliefs, therefore subjective.

Unfortunately, the issue with that is it doesn't make any sense.

...Peer review would have no value.

I've always been a little skeptical that reality is ultimately a matter of majority belief. Every step in the scientific method requires majority agreement in the form of peer review. It's not that majority agreement has no value in human affairs, it certainly does. But I'm not satisfied with the idea that majority agreement will ever be the deciding factor in determining the true nature of reality.

 

[SleepyTyrant]

Every step in the scientific method requires majority agreement in the form of peer review.

Citation needed.
Peer review has absolutely nothing to do with opinions or beliefs. Science has nothing to do with either at all.

Ideas, speculations and the like are simply not valued at any point. Science is about testing those ideas. Anything without proper basis is what gets thrown out.

Bias can play a role; people are fallible, and science is not a perfect system. But to say that science requires agreement is just a baseless lie.

 

[Drifter]

Peer review has absolutely nothing to do with opinions or beliefs.

I disagree. Even if peer review was handled entirely by robots, their programing would be subject to the beliefs and opinions of the programmers.

 

[mistykitty]

I disagree. Even if peer review was handled entirely by robots, their programing would be subject to the beliefs and opinions of the programmers.

fair point at least until machines can think for themselves

 

[SleepyTyrant]

I disagree. Even if peer review was handled entirely by robots, their programing would be subject to the beliefs and opinions of the programmers.

Bias does exist. But confronting those biases are welcomed provided they have sound basis. Science is a refinement process. Every scientific theory has been challenged multiple times over. If it required agreement, scientific progress wouldn't even happen.

 

[SleepyTyrant]

What matters in science isn't a scientist's opinions, only the results of their research. The media may give you the other impression but that is not how science functions.

 

[Sapphyre]

As tiny has pointed out that is contradictory.
Drifter also said truth is subjective.
Unfortunately, the issue with that is it doesn't make any sense.

The scientific method completely goes out the window in a world of subjective truth. Without objective truth reality can't be reliably measured. Hypotheses can't be reliably falsified. Peer review would have no value.

Actually, what tiny pointed out is that "there is ultimate truth" contradicts "all truth is subjective".

This is actually the motivation behind my earlier suggestion to unpack "truth" in terms of actual functional meaning. The idea of "truth" is otherwise too nebulous to entertain the nuance being considered here. Hence the contradiction in Drifter's earlier posting.

To say "There is a truth beyond words, but anything expressible by words is subjective" may seem far-fetched depending on one's mindset, but is not self-contradictory.

From such a perspective, the Scientific Method is indeed of quite limited use in discovering "the truth", but is of very much use in creating useful theories and models that enable us to do new things, and improve our ability to predict observables.

Notably, the ability to falsify hypotheses does not depend upon the existence of a singular "true" hypothesis that can be stated.

As somewhat of an aside, peer review is of mixed value as it stands. Too much weight is given to the names on the paper rather than its contents. Historically, the system has punished some of the brightest minds for their contributions to Science (Boltzmann, Turing, Cantor, the list of casualties goes on...).

 

[Kittyinpink]

Sorry for the confusion. What I mean by that is that most people's take on truth is based on their personal beliefs, therefore subjective.


I've always been a little skeptical that reality is ultimately a matter of majority belief. Every step in the scientific method requires majority agreement in the form of peer review. It's not that majority agreement has no value in human affairs, it certainly does. But I'm not satisfied with the idea that majority agreement will ever be the deciding factor in determining the true nature of reality.

I totally agree! Only because I have experienced being on the wrong side of 'mob rule!' The majority in the past has been highly misogynistic, racist, anti gay

 

[mistykitty]

Actually, what tiny pointed out is that "there is ultimate truth" contradicts "all truth is subjective".

This is actually the motivation behind my earlier suggestion to unpack "truth" in terms of actual functional meaning. The idea of "truth" is otherwise too nebulous to entertain the nuance being considered here. Hence the contradiction in Drifter's earlier posting.

To say "There is a truth beyond words, but anything expressible by words is subjective" may seem far-fetched depending on one's mindset, but is not self-contradictory.

From such a perspective, the Scientific Method is indeed of quite limited use in discovering "the truth", but is of very much use in creating useful theories and models that enable us to do new things, and improve our ability to predict observables.

Notably, the ability to falsify hypotheses does not depend upon the existence of a singular "true" hypothesis that can be stated.

As somewhat of an aside, peer review is of mixed value as it stands. Too much weight is given to the names on the paper rather than its contents. Historically, the system has punished some of the brightest minds for their contributions to Science (Boltzmann, Turing, Cantor, the list of casualties goes on...).

another good point made here. it's more or less like this could be a schrodingers cat situation where it can be both at the same time

 

[Kittyinpink]

I totally agree! Only because I have experienced being on the wrong side of 'mob rule!' The majority in the past has been highly misogynistic, racist, anti gay and so on! The majority of scientists were against Darwin originally. Religious persecution is another... oohh! Let's think about all the ridiculous reasons for wars.... all popular ideas at the time... etc.. I, and everyone have continually found that majority belief is often completely wrong, if not utterly insane!