| I think you might be conflating "experience" and "interpret." If we can all measure reality and come up with the same values, we are experiencing the same one. How we interpret that is another question. Keep in mind the philosophers who came before had great contributions to the big thought-experiment we call existence, but many of them argued from emotionally or socioeconomically tainted positions and nobody has gotten it 100% right yet, or we would not be having this discussion. Back to the original point of this thread, science doubts until certainty, or as close to certainty as our current capabilities will allow, is achieved. That doubt is what allows it to change with the introduction of new information. This is why the religious hold on to what they do, the paranormal believers cling to what seems like misunderstood phenomenon to the rest of us; they don't doubt, and are thus barred from discovery of the truth. |
| |
| ▲ | N2yhWNXQN3k9 4 days ago | parent [-] | | > or we would not be having this discussion. Or those who aren't students of philosophy, just never read everything they said, seems more likely, no? > Keep in mind the philosophers who came before had great contributions to the big thought-experiment we call existence, but many of them argued from emotionally or socioeconomically tainted positions and nobody has gotten it 100% right yet, or we would not be having this discussion. Okay? What does that mean? We have 300 years of society embracing this perspective of Hume and the (at least) tens of thousands of scholars that followed him. I think it is well established that we believe this, even if you have some special knowledge or something enqueued. Are you going to debunk all philosophy of the 18th century because they were arguing from an "emotionally or socioeconomically" stance (whatever that means)? It seems like an argument from an extremely weak position rhetorically, and I am being generous. | | |
| ▲ | 0xEF 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Your replies indicate that you are not able to have this discussion as you are too steeped in your field of study, which I assume you consider to be objectively correct. I respect the time and effort you've put into it, but Philosophy, though useful at times, is conjecture, not science. It does not have a place in a discussion about the inherent truth of measurable natural phenomenon if one is not able to cast doubt on it. I shall move on. | | |
| ▲ | kriops 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Science is philosophy, though what one might describe as applied philosophy. The point being: science (the scientific method) cannot exist outside the context of some epistemic system. I saw your 'recommendation' to read about Hume further up the comment chain. Respectfully, I know more than you. Take your own suggestion. But don't just read about Hume; get a broader intro to the subject so you can understand how ontology, epistemology, ethics, and politics tie into one another. | | |
| ▲ | defrost 4 days ago | parent [-] | | I saw your 'recommendation' to read about Hume further up the comment chain. Respectfully, I know more than you.
As an exercise in knowledge and observation, who 'recommended' Hume up thread, and to wHume are you replying? | | |
| ▲ | kriops 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Nice catch. Those passwords-as-usernames got me :) | | |
| ▲ | defrost 3 days ago | parent [-] | | No drama, gave me a chuckle & I'm glad you took it well; my primary motivation was to alert you in case you wanted to change up your response, etc. Hume might have enjoyed this past century's Dialetheism of Graham Priest and Richard Sylvan as a solution to paradox arising from strict rationalism, it's more probable Hume would have lacked any passion for it. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | flir 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yeah, I thought you got schooled, too. |
|
|
|
