The ways to know reality?

[Angrboda]

I'm of the opinion that the quality of 'being real' is a meaningless term, held over from times when metaphysical assumptions were simpler and more naive. Any moment now, we may awaken, only to realize this been nothing more than a dream.

Is this a competition to see who can post the most meaningless shite?

I willingly concede the title to you. No contest.

[Ace Otana]

My theist buddy keeps telling me I'm arrogant for thinking that all there is to knowing truth is experience, science, and reason. I asked him, what other way is there for coming to the truth of a matter? He said "divine revelation." But I explained to him that you have to use experience, science and reason to make sure the person giving the revelation is trustworthy and that what he says is actually true. So it just comes back to experience, science and reason.

What he's saying is instead of using science (which has been tested time and time again and is an effective tool to understanding the known and unknown) but to trust in personal feelings and faith.
He's not making any sense, but of course he wants his religious beliefs to be true, he's not interested in what's real or not.
Thing is, it's not arrogant to use a tried and tested tool and effective method to understand things. It is however arrogant to state that you know what's real or not through personal feelings and faith.

Also what's funny is that they say it's arrogant to state that we're tiny biological specks with no real significance and that we're nothing but a very brief flash compared to the immense age of the universe. And yet they believe that they're the purpose of the universe?! Who's the arrogant one?


When they comment on our views, they're actually describing themselves. Arrogant, ignorant, ect.

[Norfolk And Chance]

Is this a competition to see who can post the most meaningless shite?

I willingly concede the title to you. No contest.

[Rayaan]

How would you define reality, if not by a means of science?

I would define reality as just "what really is." The definition might also include the totality of everything that exists. But, in the end, we still do not know if science is the only means of understanding reality. You may think it is, but that doesn't necessarily make it true. For example, there may exist other dimensions and/or regions of space in the universe in which the laws of physics become totally obsolete and everything that happens there is completely unpredictable and unexplainable by science. If that was the case, which is not impossible, then this would invalidate the idea that science is the only means of understanding reality.

Reality is reality, but our beliefs about it and our method of understanding it varies from person to person. Hence, in my opinion, understanding reality is always a subjective process, even for scientists. We don't even know whose understanding of reality is the right one because, again, it is subjective.

Sure maybe, but how would we know that if that were the case? It seems that we can only understand reality with what we got.

Yeah, we can't know whether or not there are indeed other ways to know reality. That's the reason that subjective methods (or non-scientific methods) of understanding reality cannot be logically rejected as a part of trying to know reality. Science may be the best way and the most trustable way, but that doesn't exclude the possibility that there may be other ways, too, which do not exist in the realm of science but exist in people's subjective thoughts and experiences.

[Angrboda]

You know, I was going to make some snide comment on your avatar, but on reflection, I realized that an oversized pair of balls and a colossal dick is probably a fitting representation of you.



I've been bested in the meaningful comment department by someone whose comment is, "*ROFL*" I feel so outclassed. I'm going to go slash my wrists now. If anybody needs me, I'll be bleeding out.

---

How would you define reality, if not by a means of science?

I would define reality as just "what really is." The definition might also include the totality of everything that exists. But, in the end, we still do not know if science is the only means of understanding reality. You may think it is, but that doesn't necessarily make it true. For example, there may exist other dimensions and/or regions of space in the universe in which the laws of physics become totally obsolete and everything that happens there is completely unpredictable and unexplainable by science. If that was the case, which is not impossible, then this would invalidate the idea that science is the only means of understanding reality.

Reality is reality, but our beliefs about it and our method of understanding it varies from person to person. Hence, in my opinion, understanding reality is always a subjective process, even for scientists. We don't even know whose understanding of reality is the right one because, again, it is subjective.

"In Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with reality at any point."

— Friedrich Nietzsche

[Tempus]

I think philosophy and science are the only tools we have for interpreting experiences (there are other ways, like being satisfied with a guess, but I'd hardly consider that using a 'tool'). Nonetheless, that doesn't mean certain things (or aspects of things) can't exist outside our perception or tools. There are bands of light and pitches beyond ordinary human perception. We know of them via our various invented technologies, but it may be that there are things that simply cannot be perceived even by our technologies, present or future. These would be 'unknown unknowns'. An excellent book I'd highly recommend which explores that theme is Edwin A. Abbott's Flatland. Imagine trying to describe three-dimensional things to a person inhabiting a two-dimensional world.

[Norfolk And Chance]

You know, I was going to make some snide comment on your avatar, but on reflection, I realized that an oversized pair of balls and a colossal dick is probably a fitting representation of you.



I've been bested in the meaningful comment department by someone whose comment is, "*ROFL*" I feel so outclassed. I'm going to go slash my wrists now. If anybody needs me, I'll be bleeding out.

[Cyberman]

Is this a competition to see who can post the most meaningless shite?

I willingly concede the title to you. No contest.

Aw, and I thought I was in with a good chance this year...

[Napoléon]

If anybody needs me, I'll be bleeding out.

I wouldn't hold your breath dear

---

But, in the end, we still do not know if science is the only means of understanding reality. You may think it is, but that doesn't necessarily make it true.

Oh fucking hell.

Sure, there might be other ways of interpreting the universe to discern fact from fiction, other than by using science, but up until now, every other method has failed.

If you are privy to some other form of discerning "what really is" and can demonstrate it to be true and show that it works, please, feel free to let the rest of the world know about it.

For example, there may exist other dimensions and/or regions of space in the universe in which the laws of physics become totally obsolete and everything that happens there is completely unpredictable and unexplainable by science. If that was the case, which is not impossible, then this would invalidate the idea that science is the only means of understanding reality.

Okay, so you make up one hypothetical scenario, and lead on to an assertion about it (from nothing at all), and then draw a wild conclusion.

Oh how do I argue with this logic?

Reality is reality, but our beliefs about it and our method of understanding it varies from person to person. Hence, in my opinion, understanding reality is always a subjective process, even for scientists.

I call bullshit. Truth is not subjective. Conduct a test to see the mass of a teacup, and the results don't change depending on who else is in the room.

We don't even know whose understanding of reality is the right one because, again, it is subjective.

Bullshit bullshit bullshit.

[Cyberman]

But, in the end, we still do not know if science is the only means of understanding reality. You may think it is, but that doesn't necessarily make it true.

Oh fucking hell.

Sure, there might be other ways of interpreting the universe to discern fact from fiction, other than by using science, but up until now, every other method has failed.

If you are privy to some other form of discerning "what really is" and can demonstrate it to be true and show that it works, please, feel free to let the rest of the world know about it.

I'm going to channel Matt Dillahunty again, I'm afraid, but he's said on this very subject something along the lines of "if there is some better way of investigating the Universe than the scientific method, you'd need to use something like the scientific method to validate it". I've probably misquoted him horribly, but that was essentially his meaning.