EvC Forum: Objective reality

Stile writes:

If not, then how (specifically) has it been "verified to be objectively true" without using the scientific method?

The relationship in question is collectively agreed to exist within objective reality or known to exist within objective reality in the sense that it appears to be an innate mathematical property of the universe. It is a relationship that exists and has been discovered rather than being something that has been invented. The identical result can be independently derived by anyone with a mathematical understanding of reality and we would expect a suitably advanced alien civilisation to be aware of this relationship. Even if the human-alien languages, cultures, psychologies or even entire modes of thought were mutually incomprehensible.

In short it has been "verified to be objectively true" in a Platonic rather than an empirical/scientific sense.

Stile originally writes:

I still stand by the statement of:

All things that are collectively agreed to exist within objective reality are testable and verifiable through the scientific method.

So far, no one has provided any example that goes against this statement.

I fail to see how the example of $\color{white} e^{i\pi}+1=0$ fails to meet the challenge you have set forth. It has been "collectively agreed to exist within objective reality". But is NOT "verifiable through the scientific method". I honestly don't understand your problem here?

Stile writes:

I'm talking about things like the man-in-the-box example.

Ahhhh. If you are now limiting the method of verifying aspects of objective reality to being exclusively the scientific method by means of imposed assertion then it should hardly be a surprise to you that nobody is able to meet your requirement that something other than the scientific method can be used to verify aspects of objective reality. Your challenege to demonstrate such verification becomes inherently impossible by the circular and tautological nature of your own requirements.

Stile writes:

But we should remain honest in our debate, shouldn't we?

Yes we should. But I am not sure that defining the method of verification to be the scientific method and then challenging people to show that things have been verified by methods other than the scientific method qualifies as honest debate. Although in this case I think you are being bamboozled by the circulairty of your own argument rather than actually dishonest in any way.

9 online now:	Aussie, candle2, dwise1, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Rahvin, Tangle, Taq, xongsmith
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,843 Year: 4,100/9,624 Month: 971/974 Week: 298/286 Day: 19/40 Hour: 0/3