Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-19-2019 12:38 PM
120 online now:
caffeine, CosmicChimp, edge, PaulK, ringo, Tangle (6 members, 114 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,457 Year: 3,494/19,786 Month: 489/1,087 Week: 79/212 Day: 9/31 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2526
27
28293031Next
Author Topic:   Creation, Evolution, and faith
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


(1)
Message 391 of 456 (558441)
05-01-2010 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 390 by Straggler
05-01-2010 9:28 AM


Re: Objection Overruled
Straggler writes:
But why can they not have the same dream in the same way that they can both consistently identify "red"?

That isn't what "same" normally means.

Straggler writes:
It tells us we are consistently talking about the same aspect of reality that exists external to our own minds.

Actually, no, it doesn't. That it does is a commonly held hypothesis, but it is not something we can show. In particular, Berkeley's idealism suggests something very different. While most modern philosophy rejects idealism, it does not disprove it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 390 by Straggler, posted 05-01-2010 9:28 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 395 by Straggler, posted 05-01-2010 4:34 PM nwr has responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 7672
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 392 of 456 (558453)
05-01-2010 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 375 by kbertsche
04-29-2010 10:19 PM


Re: Metaphysics in Science?
Surely you can see the difference: the words "by science." Do you think this difference is insignificant?

Yes, I do think it is insignificant. The only thing put forward thus far for God existing is faith that God exists. That's it. It doesn't matter if you put "by science" in that sentence or not.

Do you operate from a position of ontological naturalism, assuming that the supernatural either doesn't exist or is irrelevant to you?

I am operating from the position that the natural is all that can be shown to exist. If you can demonstrate the existence of the supernatural I would be all ears.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 375 by kbertsche, posted 04-29-2010 10:19 PM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 205 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(1)
Message 393 of 456 (558461)
05-01-2010 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 378 by Peepul
04-30-2010 11:27 AM


Re: Tracing back to early comments...
You don't quite understand my perspective. Please look back at Re: Metaphysics in Science? (Message 328) to see my description of it.
quote:
If God is in the science and operating the universe then God is interacting with the physical world. You're actually making a particularly strong statement here about the nature of the physical world, namely that it is directed minute to minute by God.

Yes, exactly.

quote:
This must be a God of the gaps!

No, it is very different. Almost the opposite, in fact. The "God of the gaps" perspective invokes God for physical phenomena which have no present-day scientific explanation. As our scientific understanding grows, God gets "smaller." My perspective is that scientific law is a manifestation of God's consistent character. As our scientific understanding grows, our appreciation of God's activity also grows.
quote:
The only way God can play this role is in some aspect of the physical world. He can't be playing this role in a purely spiritual domain.

Correct.

quote:
For example, if he is directing the universe minute by minute, he must be intervening in the events that take place in the universe.

Yes, but the word "intervening" has the wrong connotation. "Directing" is better.
quote:
He can't be doing this in areas where we understand the physical laws that apply and where we are making observations at the time, or we'd notice.

No, this is exactly where God is directing the universe--through the physical laws that we understand. We DO notice, and we call His direction "physical law."
quote:
Are you really saying that God is only doing this when we can't see him do it?

No, absolutely not. He's doing it very plainly, out in the open.

quote:
I'm not sure whether you believe that God is the source of and upholder of physical laws (sorry If you mentioned this upthread - I haven't read the whole discussion).

Yes, that's the idea.
quote:
If so, then this also is a God of the gaps argument. It's only possible to hold this view because we don't know the origin of physical laws. I think it's an open question as to whether we will ever discover understand this scientifically but we cannot rule out the possibility.

I would maintain that this is impossible in principle, because it is a metaphysical question rather than a scientific question.

Does my position put God in a different sort of gap, perhaps a metaphysical gap rather than a scientific gap? I don't believe so; no more than the ontological naturalist position puts nature in a gap. I outlined two metaphysical positions in Re: Metaphysics in Science? (Message 328); God is in the center of the first, nature is in the center of the second. I would say that neither God nor nature are in "gaps," they are both central to their respective metaphysical positions.

Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 378 by Peepul, posted 04-30-2010 11:27 AM Peepul has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 424 by Peepul, posted 05-04-2010 12:29 PM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 205 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(1)
Message 394 of 456 (558462)
05-01-2010 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 380 by Stile
04-30-2010 12:14 PM


Re: Objection Overruled
quote:
I don't think you understand, my category has nothing to do with what actually is "objective reality". That may be something that we can never fully understand.

But "objective reality" is a metaphysical/philosophical notion, not a scientific notion.

quote:
My category is about what we collectively agree to exist within objective reality. I tried to make it bigger in case you accidentally missed it.

"Collective agreement" is a sociological notion, neither a physical science nor a metaphysical notion. I don't think it is a good way to do science or to find truth.

quote:
You cannot refute my category by simply saying you don't like it. I don't really care about what you like and don't like. There is a very simple, easy way to refute it, however. All you have to do is think of one, single idea that is "collectively agreed to exist within objective reality" that cannot be tested by science.

It's not that I don't like it. I reject it because it is an improper mixing of science and metaphysics.
quote:
(Hint... "objective reality" is what science was invented to identify...)

No. Science addresses nature, not necessarily all of "objective reality." And it addresses nature in a specific, limited way. As in Re: Tracing back to early comments... (Message 313) I again recommend Helen Quinn's description of science, which is very good, and should be acceptable irrespective of one's metaphysical position. Here again is what she wrote about science and religion:
Helen Quinn writes:


In everyday usage the question “Why?” can be either about the mechanism by which something occurred or about the reasons for or purposes behind an action. Thus the distinction between reason and mechanism, or between effect and purpose, is often blurred. Religion and philosophy are interested in reasons and purposes, but science cares only about mechanisms. That apparent reduction of the goal is a powerful step that separates modern science from its ancestor, natural philosophy. Modern science focuses our attention on just those questions that can have definitive answers based on observations. Where science does find a path to compare theory with observations, the theories so developed provide a powerful way to understand the world and even to make some predictions about the future. Science offers us new options that may be applied—for example, in technology and medicine—to change the way we live and extend our capabilities. However, scientists tend to forget that issues of reason and purpose are central to many people’s questioning, so the answers they get from science seem inadequate.


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 380 by Stile, posted 04-30-2010 12:14 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 406 by Taq, posted 05-03-2010 4:47 PM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 395 of 456 (558476)
05-01-2010 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 391 by nwr
05-01-2010 10:16 AM


Re: Objection Overruled
Are you simply saying that objective reality is necessarily perceived subjectively? If so that is so inarguable as to be almost inane.

While most modern philosophy rejects idealism, it does not disprove it.

Oh Christ - Not another proof merchant.

Are you saying that objective reality doesn't exist? What are you saying here exactly?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 391 by nwr, posted 05-01-2010 10:16 AM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 397 by nwr, posted 05-01-2010 5:11 PM Straggler has responded

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 396 of 456 (558482)
05-01-2010 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 377 by kbertsche
04-30-2010 11:27 AM


Re: Tracing back to early comments...
HI kbertsche,

Granny writes:

I do think though that it is deeply inconsistent for a scientist to hold religious beliefs. To hold one set of scientific beliefs which are logical, reasoned and evidenced, whilst simultaneously holding beliefs that are devoid of logic, reason and evidence will always be inconsistent and contradictory.

kbertsche writes:

How is this inconsistent? I don't see inconsistency, but difference. Is it inconsistent for someone to believe that a chemical analysis and a literary analysis of the same book are both true? This is the same sort of thing.

It isn't. A book is merely a book. Objective reality is a different matter. Both science and religion lead people to hold beliefs about what is real. No-one takes the contents of any secular book as being a definition of reality, but religion does claim to describe reality. These are two very different kinds of belief.

The problem, the inconsistency, is that both science and religion lead people to certain beliefs about reality. The scientist theist ends up with two sets beliefs, some supported by evidence, logic and reason, one unsupported. On the one hand, they must justify scientific ideas in a detailed and logical way, but the religious beliefs seem unsupported. I have never seen the kind of logical proof of something like the existence of God that such an idea would require were it a physical, natural claim. The mere definition of something as "supernatural" seems to be used to excuse ideas such as God from rational examination and logical justification.

This kind of behaviour requires that two separate strands of beliefs are held at once, but with both making claims about what is real.

Religions DO make some silly, indefensible claims from time to time, as do scientists (e.g. Dawkins). But can you give a specific example of "claims about the natural world" which are central to Christianity but are "incompatible with a scientific approach?" I can't think of any.

Things like the existence of a soul, a claim which clearly implies that the existence of brains is somehow inadequate to explain the existence of minds. Claims like yours earlier in the thread, where you insisted that natural phenomena like the origin of the universe should be thought of as being within the realm of theology.

In claiming that natural explanations are insufficient, religion is overstepping it's bounds. A good example of this kind of thing is the Catholic idea that the soul was inserted into humanity at a certain point in our evolution (an idea that Francis Collins is keen on I believe). This is completely unsupported and the evidence from our primate cousins is against it. But it fits the religious biases of its supporters, so it gets a free pass. It is an attempt to push the supernatural into an area where natural explanations are far better supported. In my opinion, most of the claims of religion that are contrary to science are of this nature; forcing supernatural explanations into explainable natural phenomena.

I deny that there is any cognitive dissonance in my views of science and religion. Absolutely none. Can you explain where you think I have cognitive dissonance?

In demanding logical evidence for scientific ideas, but waiving all such requirements for supernatural ones. All ideas about what is real and what is not, however tentatively held, need some kind of evidence. I don't think that you can support your religious beliefs with logic and evidence. In fact, you have pointedly refused to do so. With respect, I suspect that you believe that your ideas are more logically based than they actually are, something that you would share with most theists of my experience. Of course I may be wrong, but that is what I suspect. Certainly, you support your scientific arguments (against the creation science folks) rather better than you do your explicitely Christian arguments.

It appears that you and I are using the words "compatible" and "incompatible" differently. I agree with the gist of what you say here, but I would call this a difference rather than an incompatibility. So let's avoid the word "incompatible" and use the word "contradictory." What I mean is that the two approaches do not contradict one another. They can both be held without contradiction or conflict.

Look at it this way; could we ever base a scientific conclusion upon an artistic analysis? Of course not. Similarly, one could never (or at least should never) base a scientific principle upon a religious analysis. The "soul-insertion" idea takes exactly this form, with its implicit claim that the mind is insufficient to support human conciousness. It bases an essential scientific claim upon a religious grounding.

Can you explain exactly where you see "cognitive dissonance" in Francis Collins' position?

I've not read Collins' book - I acquire books randomly from charity shops mostly - but I have read some articles by him. I have some familiarity with the kinds of argument that he makes.

An example of the kind of claim that he makes would be that God has used evolution to groom us into his chosen species and that having just about got it right, that's it for human evolution.

quote:
"Among Collins’s most controversial beliefs is that of “theistic evolution”, which claims natural selection is the tool that God chose to create man. In his version of the theory, he argues that man will not evolve further.

“I see God’s hand at work through the mechanism of evolution. If God chose to create human beings in his image and decided that the mechanism of evolution was an elegant way to accomplish that goal, who are we to say that is not the way,” he says.


Now that is crazy talk. Collins seems to believe that the ToE is sufficient to explain all creatures other than humanity, but it somehow falls short when it comes to us. This is bizarre and unsupported by any evidence. He believes some things to be fact because they are supported by logical evidence. He believes other things for no apparent reason other than his religiously founded desire to believe it. Tome, the dissonance is clear.

Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 377 by kbertsche, posted 04-30-2010 11:27 AM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


(1)
Message 397 of 456 (558485)
05-01-2010 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 395 by Straggler
05-01-2010 4:34 PM


Re: Objection Overruled
Straggler writes:
Are you simply saying that objective reality is necessarily perceived subjectively?

I did not think I was saying that.

Straggler writes:
Oh Christ - Not another proof merchant.

Actually, ,no. I was simply pointing out that your conclusion claimed too much.

Straggler writes:
Are you saying that objective reality doesn't exist?

I have not been hinting at any hidden mystical meaning. I suggest you take me as saying what I actually said.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 395 by Straggler, posted 05-01-2010 4:34 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 398 by Straggler, posted 05-03-2010 10:47 AM nwr has responded

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 398 of 456 (558631)
05-03-2010 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 397 by nwr
05-01-2010 5:11 PM


Re: Objection Overruled
You seem to be doing your usual thing of randomly posting disagreement without actually taking a coherent position of your own.

Nwr writes:

I suggest you take me as saying what I actually said.

I can only ask again - What are you saying here exactly? What exactly is your position?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 397 by nwr, posted 05-01-2010 5:11 PM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 399 by nwr, posted 05-03-2010 12:01 PM Straggler has responded

nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


(1)
Message 399 of 456 (558640)
05-03-2010 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 398 by Straggler
05-03-2010 10:47 AM


Re: Objection Overruled
Straggler writes:
You seem to be doing your usual thing of randomly posting disagreement without actually taking a coherent position of your own.

Well, excuse me. However, this particular ridiculous subthread began at Message 384 where you interjected a random (and in my opinion, inane) question.

Presumably you disagreed with something that I said, but you have never clearly stated what was your objection.

Straggler writes:
I can only ask again - What are you saying here exactly? What exactly is your position?

What I was saying, before your interruption at Message 384, was that people were making objections to religion that would also apply to many other areas - I mentioned mathematics, but I could also have mentioned Shakespearean drama or rock music.

I was implicitly asking that people be a little more careful in their wording.

I suspect that is not what you are asking about here. But since you have never clearly stated your position on whatever it is that you take to be at issue, it is not clear to me what you are asking about.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 398 by Straggler, posted 05-03-2010 10:47 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 400 by Straggler, posted 05-03-2010 12:14 PM nwr has responded

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 400 of 456 (558642)
05-03-2010 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 399 by nwr
05-03-2010 12:01 PM


"Shared Subjectivity" - What Do You Mean Exactly?
What I was saying, before your interruption at Message 384, was that people were making objections to religion that would also apply to many other areas - I mentioned mathematics, but I could also have mentioned Shakespearean drama or rock music.

Such as?

Any in what sense would we expect science and rock music to meet comparable criteria anyway?

But since you have never clearly stated your position on whatever it is that you take to be at issue, it is not clear to me what you are asking about.

My objection is to what you seem to be saying here:

Nwr writes:

Some (including me) would argue that objectivity is just shared subjectivity anyway.

As per Message 384

I will ask (yet again) what exactly do you mean by this? Do you even know what you mean?

For example - If a number of people independently claim to have had wholly subjective experiences of Allah does this mean that Allah has been objectively evidenced as far as you are concerned? Is this an example of "shared subjectivity" or not? If not then what is?

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 399 by nwr, posted 05-03-2010 12:01 PM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 401 by nwr, posted 05-03-2010 1:25 PM Straggler has responded

nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


(1)
Message 401 of 456 (558644)
05-03-2010 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 400 by Straggler
05-03-2010 12:14 PM


Re: "Shared Subjectivity" - What Do You Mean Exactly?
Straggler writes:
Any in what sense would we expect science and rock music to meet comparable criteria anyway?

We wouldn't.

Similarly, we should not expect science and religion to meet comparable criteria. And that was my point.

To say it differently, we should not criticize religion for not being science. It is, however, fair to criticize religion for making scientific claims based only on religious grounds.

As I said, we should be careful with our criticisms.

Straggler writes:
My objection is to what you seem to be saying here:

Nwr writes:

Some (including me) would argue that objectivity is just shared subjectivity anyway.


I am wondering what the objection is. I have use the expression "shared subjectivity" before, though perhaps not at evcforum, and it did not seem to be controversial.

Straggler writes:
I will ask (yet again) what exactly do you mean by this?

Our experience with the world is subjective. We use the term "objective" for those aspects of that experience over which there seems to be widespread agreement.

Straggler writes:
If a number of people independently claim to have had wholly subjective experiences of Allah does this mean that Allah has been objectively evidenced as far as you are concerned?

No.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 400 by Straggler, posted 05-03-2010 12:14 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 402 by Straggler, posted 05-03-2010 1:51 PM nwr has responded
 Message 403 by Rahvin, posted 05-03-2010 1:51 PM nwr has responded
 Message 408 by Taq, posted 05-03-2010 4:49 PM nwr has responded

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 402 of 456 (558646)
05-03-2010 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 401 by nwr
05-03-2010 1:25 PM


Re: "Shared Subjectivity" - What Do You Mean Exactly?
To say it differently, we should not criticize religion for not being science. It is, however, fair to criticize religion for making scientific claims based only on religious grounds.

Is the claim that god exists external to ones own mind a claim about objective reality? If it is does it require objective evidence?

I am wondering what the objection is. I have use the expression "shared subjectivity" before, though perhaps not at evcforum, and it did not seem to be controversial.

My objection is to the ambiguity. Which you still have not rectified. Yet again - What exactly do you mean by "shared subjectivity"? Can you give an example?

I still don't even know whether your position accepts or rejects the existence of objective reality.

Our experience with the world is subjective. We use the term "objective" for those aspects of that experience over which there seems to be widespread agreement.

In which case you once again appear to be making the inarguable and largely inane observation that objective reality is necessarily perceived subjectively.

Straggler writes:

If a number of people independently claim to have had wholly subjective experiences of Allah does this mean that Allah has been objectively evidenced as far as you are concerned?

No.

Well on that we agree. But you still seem happier stating what you don't mean than specifying what you do mean.

Straggler writes:

Are you simply saying that objective reality is necessarily perceived subjectively?

I did not think I was saying that.

So what exactly do you mean by "shared subjectivity"? Can you give an example that is not just subjective perception of objective reality?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 401 by nwr, posted 05-03-2010 1:25 PM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 404 by nwr, posted 05-03-2010 3:50 PM Straggler has responded

Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1260 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 403 of 456 (558647)
05-03-2010 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 401 by nwr
05-03-2010 1:25 PM


Re: "Shared Subjectivity" - What Do You Mean Exactly?
Our experience with the world is subjective. We use the term "objective" for those aspects of that experience over which there seems to be widespread agreement.

I think that's a poor way to define "objective." It means any claim of fact boils down to an appeal to popularity, and it would also mean (as written) that if sufficient people agree that blue is superior to red, then blue is "objectively" the superior color.

It's true that each of us experiences the world individually, and thus subjectively. However, many of those experiences are the result of realities that appear to be independent of the observer. We determine this by comparing our individual subjective experiences, but it's not simply a matter of "we all agree that there is a building here, therefore the building's existence is objective." Disagreement that the building exists, for instance, does not stop us from taking pictures of it, or even going inside. Whether most people agree that I have two cats or not, my cats exist independent of prevailing opinion and continue to eat surprising amounts of food. Shared subjective experiences, however, still allow for considering mass hallucinations and just plain being wrong (see: flat Earth, Creationism, etc) to be considered "objective" when they are nothing of the sort.

So while we do share subjective experiences of objective reality, you cannot simply say that subjective experiences are objective simply because of "widespread agreement." Objective reality consists of that which exists independent of the observer; widespread agreement is not required.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 401 by nwr, posted 05-03-2010 1:25 PM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 405 by nwr, posted 05-03-2010 4:21 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


(1)
Message 404 of 456 (558653)
05-03-2010 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 402 by Straggler
05-03-2010 1:51 PM


Re: "Shared Subjectivity" - What Do You Mean Exactly?
Straggler writes:
Is the claim that god exists external to ones own mind a claim about objective reality?

Presumably, that would depend on one's concept of god.

Straggler writes:
My objection is to the ambiguity. Which you still have not rectified.

I see that you have not explained what ambiguity.

Just about every word in our language is ambiguous. You might as well get used to a little ambiguity. I shall ignore your objection.

Straggler writes:
I still don't even know whether your position accepts or rejects the existence of objective reality.

But what does that even mean?

I disagree with Berkeley's idealism, if that is what you are asking.

Straggler writes:
In which case you once again appear to be making the inarguable and largely inane observation that objective reality is necessarily perceived subjectively.

No, that is not what I have been saying.

Incidently, you seem to be taking this way off topic for the thread.

Straggler writes:
So what exactly do you mean by "shared subjectivity"?

See Message 401.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 402 by Straggler, posted 05-03-2010 1:51 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 407 by Straggler, posted 05-03-2010 4:48 PM nwr has responded

nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


(1)
Message 405 of 456 (558654)
05-03-2010 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 403 by Rahvin
05-03-2010 1:51 PM


Re: "Shared Subjectivity" - What Do You Mean Exactly?
Rahvin writes:
I think that's a poor way to define "objective."

I was not attempting to define "objective."

Rahvin writes:
It means any claim of fact boils down to an appeal to popularity, ...

No, it does not mean that at all. My explanation was about experience, not about opinion.

Rahvin writes:
However, many of those experiences are the result of realities that appear to be independent of the observer.

If you consider only those aspects of experience for which there is widespread agreement, then that pretty much guarantees that what is thereby considered will appear to be independent of the observer. That appearance of independence is thus an expected result of the methodology. It would be a mistake to jump to conclusions beyond that.

Rahvin writes:
We determine this by comparing our individual subjective experiences, but it's not simply a matter of "we all agree that there is a building here, therefore the building's existence is objective."

"There is a building there" is not an experience. It is an interpretation of experience. My comment was about experience, not about interpretation.

Rahvin writes:
Disagreement that the building exists, for instance, does not stop us from taking pictures of it, or even going inside.

Taking pictures and going inside are some of the things we do that are part of our experiencing the world.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 403 by Rahvin, posted 05-03-2010 1:51 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

RewPrev1
...
2526
27
28293031Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019