How can we be sure this is reality?

[Jackalope]

So if you don't disagree with me then what do you think I am missing? Science, especially QM suggests weird things? Yea, but it will never make fiction or si fi real or invisible beings real. It also will not make the universe itself a thinking being.

Still failing to understand why people are trying to turn "you don't know" into "therefore" propositions.

We can rule out allot of crap without worrying about the future. That is all I am saying.

No, you miss the mark again.

In order to model reality under the scientific method, observations of our perception of reality are used. But are those observations of perceived reality consistent with actual reality? I don't know, and you don't know either. Prove it, and there's a Nobel prize waiting for you. We assume that our perceptions are of reality (backed by the perceptions of others and the peer review process), because to assume the reverse would be both absurd and not useful to explain anything.

That I understand this, and you seem to not, does not mean that I think science is a bunch of assumptions pulled out of our collective asses.

[Brian37]

So if you don't disagree with me then what do you think I am missing? Science, especially QM suggests weird things? Yea, but it will never make fiction or si fi real or invisible beings real. It also will not make the universe itself a thinking being.

Still failing to understand why people are trying to turn "you don't know" into "therefore" propositions.

We can rule out allot of crap without worrying about the future. That is all I am saying.

No, you miss the mark again.

In order to model reality under the scientific method, observations of our perception of reality are used. But are those observations of perceived reality consistent with actual reality? I don't know, and you don't know either. Prove it, and there's a Nobel prize waiting for you. We assume that our perceptions are of reality (backed by the perceptions of others and the peer review process), because to assume the reverse would be both absurd and not useful to explain anything.

That I understand this, and you seem to not, does not mean that I think science is a bunch of assumptions pulled out of our collective asses.

So we are not in disagreement. I don't think science is a bunch of assumptions pulled out of a scientists ass either. So what is the problem?

I think maybe you are getting semantic.

But are those observations of perceived reality consistent with actual reality?

That's why scientists test and review. It allows science to adapt to new and better data.

Again, not knowing the future does not mean we cant use a trash can when we come across bad data, nor does it mean we should assume the future just because we dont know the future.

[Jackalope]

That's why scientists test and review. It allows science to adapt to new and better data.

Yes, but it does not in any way shape or form inform us as to whether or not we are actually in fact, or even capable of, accurately perceiving reality. That's what you're missing.

Again, not knowing the future does not mean we cant use a trash can when we come across bad data, nor does it mean we should assume the future just because we dont know the future.

More unwarranted reading between the lines, I think. I don't recall anyone suggesting otherwise in this thread.

[Violet]

Ok, correct me if I am wrong. One of two things is going on here. You really think I am mean, or am being needlessly mean, as portrayed by those muppet characters(loved those guys btw),

Your reality has you shackled firm. Let loose them, break them, and fly free, young sparrow. The chains of fate cannot bind the strong will, nor hold they long fiery passion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7m5Int1hAA

Or, this simply a repeat of the ABBA thread where it is going over my head.

Leave humor to the bears, Ebenezer.

Whatever it is, maybe I just need more time to get your humor. You did admit to poking people with sticks sometimes.

I'll poke people with toothpicks if I feel it'd be a good laugh. I try to avoid their eyes or their vitals, however... never know when my toothpick will become a greatsword and spear a bitch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVWMAgErKOA

---

That I understand this, and you seem to not, does not mean that I think science is a bunch of assumptions pulled out of our collective asses.

Though... it should be noted that this is exactly what science is

---

Again, not knowing the future does not mean we cant use a trash can when we come across bad data, nor does it mean we should assume the future just because we dont know the future.

What in the name of Godzilla are you on about?

[Brian37]

That's why scientists test and review. It allows science to adapt to new and better data.

Yes, but it does not in any way shape or form inform us as to whether or not we are actually in fact, or even capable of, accurately perceiving reality. That's what you're missing.

Again, not knowing the future does not mean we cant use a trash can when we come across bad data, nor does it mean we should assume the future just because we dont know the future.

More unwarranted reading between the lines, I think. I don't recall anyone suggesting otherwise in this thread.

Yes, but it does not in any way shape or form inform us as to whether or not we are actually in fact, or even capable of, accurately perceiving reality. That's what you're missing.

No I am not missing it. I think you are over conflating not me.

It still amounts to you saying "technically we don't know".

But there is a a lot we do know and we have the best tool so far.

So if we are not in disagreement that scientific method is our best tool so far and we both agree testing and review is the best way to gauge reality, "technically" still amounts to "ifs and buts were candy and nuts".

There is lots we don't know. Yea, I am sure. And a lot we will discover. So?

[Nine]

I don't think anyone here is taking a dig at science. Its great, I love it. But you have to base it on the assumption that this is reality. There is no way to find out if this is reality or not.

[Brian37]

I don't think anyone here is taking a dig at science. Its great, I love it. But you have to base it on the assumption that this is reality. There is no way to find out if this is reality or not.

I am not accusing either Catulu or Violet of taking a dig a science. You don't come to a board like this if you hate science.

I just think this is a argument of how we should view "I don't know" statements.

I simply don't want it to become fuel for others to go "AH HA so therefore anything is possible". Yea "technically" but how likely?

[Annik]

I don't think anyone here is taking a dig at science. Its great, I love it. But you have to base it on the assumption that this is reality. There is no way to find out if this is reality or not.

This exactly. No one is saying science isn't valid or anything, but it is a fact that we're assuming that the reality is real. Any test we might do to test if this is reality or not would be moot, since all our methods are set up with the assumption that this is reality.

[Brian37]

There is no way to find out if this is reality or not.

Technically, yes, but I am not going waste my time worrying about all the ifs and butts that "technically" might happen. Science is still giving us the best gauge of reality so far.

[Annik]

There is no way to find out if this is reality or not.

Technically, yes, but I am not going waste my time worrying about all the ifs and butts that "technically" might happen. Science is still giving us the best gauge of reality so far.

No one is saying the opposite. We're just saying that there is simply no way to know for sure. That doesn't mean we have to alter our behaviors, but it's a fact we have to absorb.