While I appreciate your pedantry, I am only perceiving data. The imperceptible is still as such. At this point I’m not sure if you’re trying to prove something, or merely attain some nebulous linguistic “gotcha”. The entire “you can only perceive reality with your senses” statement you made was presumably to somehow call into question that reality is not able to be perceived in any other way. That doesn’t seem to be where you’re trying to go anymore.
Ah, upon review, you’re trying to claim there is no evidence for reality being measurable, to which I presented evidence, the fact that our senses are not the only implements that can measure reality, but you’re still trying to call that into question by somehow saying if we didn’t have senses, we couldn’t interpret the data? This is a tree falling in the woods sort of argument. Of course there is a sound still if no one is around to hear it. Just like how these instruments we’ve made can measure the world and universe with or without us interpreting the data.
Now if you want to get into a “Schrödinger’s data” sort of argument where the data doesn’t exist until we percieve it, that would be equally ridiculous.
I will also say, you may be leaning into some sort of solipsism, which is kind of stupid anyway, especially since the conversation here was about empirical statement.
You’ve been talking nonsense and I’ve been trying to demonstrate that to you. You say we can trust our senses, because our senses say there are instruments which can verify them. This is ridiculous. This is like trusting that a man can sell you London Bridge, because he says he’s personal friends with King George and King George can verify his story. You don’t get to meet King George, of course, you only have the man’s word that he’s involved at all. But you blindly trust him because he says he’s trustworthy. This is exactly the same as you blindly trusting your senses because they tell you they’re trustworthy.
You seem to have gotten impatient with failing to grasp this simple logic, and now seek to dismiss it by attacking me. To aid you, I give you my own views on the subject, in this thread: https://lemm.ee/comment/7537647
There you go. I am no solipsist, I am an antirealist. Now, before you proceed to attack my position, I ask that you seriously consider your own extraordinary claim that we can trust our senses simply because they tell us they’ve got proof.
My overall point is that our senses are biased by a combination of biological and social factors that even fundamental axioms such as spacetime are untrustworthy. This is important because it legitimises antirealism as a scientific position. And that’s important because a lot of people won’t take political positions seriously unless they have a scientific backing. The fact that antirealism has better scientific backing than realism is important for trans and indigenous liberation.
It was mostly the part about the better scientific backing, despite science being based in realism, what with all of that pesky empirical data. This “scientific anti-realism” or whatever people want to call it is little more than solipsism-lite. The diet coke of egocentric nonsense. It’s a great position to take, though, because you basically don’t have to prove shit if everything is just unknowable outside of self. Not a very fun way to actually live, I’ll add.
Science isn’t based in realism. Science is based on empirical observation and experimentation, and consistency through repetition and peer review. The fact that most current science is based on a certain paradigm doesn’t mean that paradigm is correct. Einstein proved that Newtonian motion, upon which all prior physics was based, was incorrect. Likewise, realism is a paradigm that can be disproven. And it has been disproven by Hoffman.
While I appreciate your pedantry, I am only perceiving data. The imperceptible is still as such. At this point I’m not sure if you’re trying to prove something, or merely attain some nebulous linguistic “gotcha”. The entire “you can only perceive reality with your senses” statement you made was presumably to somehow call into question that reality is not able to be perceived in any other way. That doesn’t seem to be where you’re trying to go anymore.
Ah, upon review, you’re trying to claim there is no evidence for reality being measurable, to which I presented evidence, the fact that our senses are not the only implements that can measure reality, but you’re still trying to call that into question by somehow saying if we didn’t have senses, we couldn’t interpret the data? This is a tree falling in the woods sort of argument. Of course there is a sound still if no one is around to hear it. Just like how these instruments we’ve made can measure the world and universe with or without us interpreting the data.
Now if you want to get into a “Schrödinger’s data” sort of argument where the data doesn’t exist until we percieve it, that would be equally ridiculous.
I will also say, you may be leaning into some sort of solipsism, which is kind of stupid anyway, especially since the conversation here was about empirical statement.
You’ve been talking nonsense and I’ve been trying to demonstrate that to you. You say we can trust our senses, because our senses say there are instruments which can verify them. This is ridiculous. This is like trusting that a man can sell you London Bridge, because he says he’s personal friends with King George and King George can verify his story. You don’t get to meet King George, of course, you only have the man’s word that he’s involved at all. But you blindly trust him because he says he’s trustworthy. This is exactly the same as you blindly trusting your senses because they tell you they’re trustworthy.
You seem to have gotten impatient with failing to grasp this simple logic, and now seek to dismiss it by attacking me. To aid you, I give you my own views on the subject, in this thread: https://lemm.ee/comment/7537647
There you go. I am no solipsist, I am an antirealist. Now, before you proceed to attack my position, I ask that you seriously consider your own extraordinary claim that we can trust our senses simply because they tell us they’ve got proof.
No attack on you, just mostly solipsism and an admission I have no idea where you’re going with this anymore.
My overall point is that our senses are biased by a combination of biological and social factors that even fundamental axioms such as spacetime are untrustworthy. This is important because it legitimises antirealism as a scientific position. And that’s important because a lot of people won’t take political positions seriously unless they have a scientific backing. The fact that antirealism has better scientific backing than realism is important for trans and indigenous liberation.
Now I KNOW you’re taking the piss. Cheers, mate.
The genocide of indigenous religions was motivated by the political ideology of realism
It was mostly the part about the better scientific backing, despite science being based in realism, what with all of that pesky empirical data. This “scientific anti-realism” or whatever people want to call it is little more than solipsism-lite. The diet coke of egocentric nonsense. It’s a great position to take, though, because you basically don’t have to prove shit if everything is just unknowable outside of self. Not a very fun way to actually live, I’ll add.
So yes. Piss taken. I get it. Haha.
Science isn’t based in realism. Science is based on empirical observation and experimentation, and consistency through repetition and peer review. The fact that most current science is based on a certain paradigm doesn’t mean that paradigm is correct. Einstein proved that Newtonian motion, upon which all prior physics was based, was incorrect. Likewise, realism is a paradigm that can be disproven. And it has been disproven by Hoffman.