Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Science the Search for Objective Truth in an Objective Reality
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 64 (368516)
12-08-2006 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Neutralmind
12-08-2006 4:21 PM


Re: Success of science
Something like dark matter perhaps?
Perhaps. We haven't detected dark matter at all, have we? Its just fits into the equation so it must exist, right?
Is dark matter supernatural, by definition?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Neutralmind, posted 12-08-2006 4:21 PM Neutralmind has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Neutralmind, posted 12-08-2006 4:40 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 46 by JonF, posted 12-08-2006 6:09 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 49 by Straggler, posted 12-08-2006 7:15 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 64 (369062)
12-11-2006 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Straggler
12-08-2006 6:30 PM


Re: Objective Reality
It kinda sucks for science that the only reality that we, as individuals, are capable of observing is subjective.
Well yes and no. It would not be half as much fun if it were too easy!!
Well, it’d make technological advancement a lot quicker, that could be a lot of fun.
Theoretically, yes, but as far as applications of science go, no
Agreed. I would personally call that engineering but that is splitting hairs.
Well this makes sense. I have an engineering degree and when I think of science, in general, I think of what you are calling engineering. My degree is a bachelors of science and when I think of science I think of how I was trained in science, which was engineering. Without some clarifier as to what you meant by “science”, I just resorted to instinct
All this requires is consistency of physical laws within whatever physical realm these exist.
Which was pretty much my point and why I don’t think an objective reality is necessary, even for theoretical science.
(however as a thinking human being the engineer might be interested in the fact his reality is actually a matrix style creation.....but that is another question)
But we don’t question whether this perceived objective reality is an actual objective reality now, so why would we do it in the matrix? It is just assumes that whatever physical consistencies we detect are objective, but not that they must be. All they need to be is consistant, which does not imply 'objective'.
Can you show how you arrived at this conclusion because I still don't see why it is neccessary and inherent? Are you saying that science would be impossible without the assumption of an objective reality? Because I don't think it would be...
I think the scientific method and aims of pure science would be very different and unrecognisable from what we call science if an objective reality were not presumed by science.
Can you exemplify those differences to clarify?
Independently repeatable experimentation, verification through prediction, error analysis and the search for universal laws (e.g. gravitation, 2nd law of thermodynamics etc.) are all meaningless unless there is an absolute with which to be compared (Note - It matters not whether this absolute can in practice be observed free from subjectivity - it's existence is all that is required)
I don’t see why they would be meaningless. I think they would be the exact same with or without an objective for comparison. Its all based on the collected evidence and their consistencies, whether or not they are objective. Like you said: (and I think this applies to theoretical science too)
quote:
All this requires is consistency of physical laws within whatever physical realm these exist.
Or is science concluding that the charge of an electron is E and that this value is fixed irrespective of who is conscious of it, indeed whether or not anyone is conscious of it and regardless of where in the universe it may find itself?
Yeah, that one.
I guess you are calling that the necessity of an objective reality while I am just seeing it as consistency, without the need for objectivity.
Electrons I accept may just be a convenient human model but as we get ever more accurate measurements of the charge of an electron what exactly is it we are getting closer to if not some property of an objective reality?
Oh I agree that the objective reality is out there, I just don’t think it is necessary to assume it in order for science to work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Straggler, posted 12-08-2006 6:30 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Straggler, posted 12-23-2006 9:43 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024