Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on February 10, 2005, at 23:16:08
In reply to Re: quick thought... » Gabbi-x-2, posted by alexandra_k on February 10, 2005, at 22:12:17
> > > Science isn’t authoritative on everything. But it is authoritative on a limited domain.
>
> > That's exactly what I was saying here...
>
> Yeah, I thought you'd like that :-)
>
> > I won't ever believe, that science is authoritative though...
>
> Okay. What I had in mind by authoratitive is that we have better reason to believe what the scientists say (when and *only when* they make claims about their limited domain) than we have reason to believe the non-scientist. If we ask 'do NZ sparrows migrate' and there is a conflict between cousin Joe the artist and the scientific journals IMO it would be more rational to go with the journals...
>Yes, it tries hard : ) and it is respected.
> Kuhn "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" talked about the progress of science from a scientific historian point of view. He maintained that different scientists view the world through different theorietical lenses. The lenses are unavoidable (there isn't a 'view from nowhere') and the lenses infect the way they describe the world.
>
Ewwwwwwwwwwww I hate KuhnOh wait, that's F. Kuhn my G.P..
> For example, Joseph Black wrote that he 'observed' heat-fluid (phlogiston?) flow from one object to another... Nowdays scientists 'observe' the motions / vibrations of molecules. Observation is always theory laden.
> Quine showed us that. The observational / theorietical distinction is untenable.
>
> Kuhn thought that different world views (alchemy vs modern atomic theory) were incommensurable and incomparable... Lets see if I can remember...
>
> 'two scientists working within two different frameworks neither oberve the same phenomena nor observe the same results'.
>
> Science doesn't work in a cumulative fashion. Rather, whole frameworks are thrown out and abandoned. If you go to study chemistry you are unlikely to study alchemy. You are unlikely to study what Aristotle and the alchemists had to say. That is because they work within a completely different framework...
>
> That is probably more confusing than anything else, but I thought you might like it..
>It's very interesting, I know little of the sciences technically, just what I've stumbled on. I don't know why I don't read more though, it always fascinates me when I do..
> The results we see, the *things* we observe are dependent of the *theory* or lens through which we view the world. Every now and then the lens changes - e.g., newtonian mechanics vs eienstinean mechanics.
>
> > > That's what I was saying here...
>
> Goodie, you liked it again :-)
>
> > Some things cannot be defined (by science) that does not mean they are not real.
>
> Thats right. Science is the study of *inter-subjective* reality.
>Well that statement (mine) only originated as my response to your earlier post that "what is real is *true* and what is fantasy is *false*
Äfter that that you said it was intersubjective
which is what I had been saying previously.
So yeah, we're saying the same thing.
> > Hence my statement that reality is subjective.
>
> But not all of it. I'll try to give an example.No, I never meant in it's entirety. I should have been more clear.
> I am now sitting in front of a computer.
> That is true or false, it either is the case in reality or it is not. That is mind independent in the sense that my mind might believe the answer is yes and yours might believe the answer is no and one of us would have to be wrong. Whether it is true or false isn't anything to do with the state of our minds - it is to do with the way things are in the world.
>
> I do haggle a bit. Because we aren't in agreement over terminology or distinctions. You sort of need to start with a mind / matter distinction. Then what is real is facts about mind and facts about matter. Science can do facts about matter and they are supposed to be mind-independent. Though it then turns out that because of our limits given our place in the world the best we can manage is a study of inter-subjectivity and reality is unobservable / beyond our grasp in principle.
>
> You then have a linguistic decision to make: either reality is beyond our grasp in principle, or reality turned out to be a little different than we had supposed (in the sense that reality is inter-subjective). I dub these reality1 and reality2. That is a distinction Kant made...
>Well first, I'm truly not a fan of Kant,
but at any rate here is a huge difference in the way we are, period. I'm rarely swayed by an appeal to authority, and especially not in this area. My main purpose for learning is to, tangibly improve my life in that it helps me appreciate others, what surrounds me, and help me find my own thoughts.
There is a Zen Buddhist Koan, "If you find the Buddha on the road, kill him" that is probably the best way to describe what I mean. Meaning isn't out "there" neatly penned and categorized for me to find, but what has been experienced by others can be a stepping stone for me. I can find what I need as easily from a corner store clerk as a p.h.d.
> Depending on what decision you make you will get a different answer to the questions:
> - Can we have knowledge of reality?
> - Is reality mind-independent?
> - If a tree falls in the woods...?
>
> Thats why philosophers always say 'well, it all depends on what you mean by xxxxx'.
>
> > Reality is comprised of thought, consciousness produces thought, consciousness is relative therefore reality is subjective.
>
> Sorry, but I don't think that works. Reality1 is the cause of our experiences.I disagree, I know many do agree with that, and of course I believe it's true much of the time, I have also witnessed experience and thought altering "reality" or the tangible. Would it pass the science test? No. Would it have been respected in history, or in other societies as a valid experience? Yes. Do I care if science validates it? No. Science is very often late to prove (by it's own method) what people have already known to be true.
Our experiences are subjective. I can't have your experinece. But we can have two different experiences of *the same thing*. It is the thing that is supposed to have a mind independent existence. It would be there regardless of our having observed it.
>
> > > If a tree falls in the woods and there is nobody there to hear it – then does it make a sound?
>
> > I've always thought that the latter was meant not to find an answer but to free your mind from rigid thinking.
>
> Different thinkers have different answers depending on their theory of reality... Locke believed in mind-independent reality (reality1) but the price to pay is that we can never have knowledge of the external world. Well, okay, to be exact we can never know that we have knowledge of the external world.I think you are referring to the different "thinkers", who had the good fortune to be recorded. I'm not invalidating them, but the way that's put seems to me to limit the beliefs of others.
> Berkely thought 'to be is to be perceived'. All that exists / is real are ideas in minds. Then he has a problem of if we all close our eyes then the universe (or tree) would disappear in reality.
>
> He loses objective reality. Then, as a manouver he invokes god. Everything need not disappear just because we close our eyes - because all of reality (even us ourselves) are really ideas in the mind of god! The tree is observed by god, and so all is well. Everything is an idea. But to say 'everything is an idea' is to lose the subjective / objective; mental / physical distinction...> Ultimately it would be a good one to lose, I agree.
That's the stuff I don't have the stomach for..
That's what I was referring to when I said it's time for me to go pet the dog, or pick a dandilion.. When I here those theories being discussed I feel like I'm listening to Frasier, except that I enjoy that as self-mocking comedy.
> But I think ideas are on the one hand and reality1 is on the other...
>
> And inter-subjectivity (reality2) has to be the bridge between them...
>
>
I couldn't possibly know, and I don't want to to try to alphabetize and file the nature of reality. I could copy a painting but it wouldn't make it art.
> We actually ask students that question - but it is more 'compare and contrast the answers that would be given by Locke and Berkeley'...
>
> Do you think the ability to see it both ways would help free one from rigid thinking?I would think that it makes someone ask questions at all is beginning to free them from rigid thinking.
Well, my eyes are buggy and I have p.m.s
Next I would like to discuss the nature of chocolate.
poster:Gabbi-x-2
thread:455724
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050205/msgs/456117.html