Devil's advocate for why ontology is meaningless and vacuous.

[Gemini]

No because many would think that "subjectivity is objectively existent" would be a contradictory statement. Indeed ontology is the study of being or existence. There is ontological objectivity and there is epistemological objectivity. For that reason "subjectivity is objectively existent" is not a contradiction because I have specified that I am talking about ontological subjectivity which is indeed is objectively existent if only as a totality of subjective objects or 'subjects'.

That seems to be a very common error people make. Noting the distinction between ontological and epistemological subjectivity is a good way to point it out.

[Edwardo Piet]

I thank John Searle for that one.

A simple brief from Wikipedia:

[John]Searle has argued that critics like Daniel Dennett, who (he claims) insist that discussing subjectivity is unscientific because science presupposes objectivity, are making a category error. Perhaps the goal of science is to establish and validate statements which are epistemically objective, (i.e., whose truth can be discovered and evaluated by any interested party), but are not necessarily ontologically objective.

Searle calls any value judgment epistemically subjective. Thus, "McKinley is prettier than Everest" is "epistemically subjective", whereas "McKinley is higher than Everest" is "epistemically objective." In other words, the latter statement is evaluable (in fact, falsifiable) by an understood ('background') criterion for mountain height, like 'the summit is so many meters above sea level'. No such criteria exist for prettiness.

Beyond this distinction, Searle thinks there are certain phenomena (including all conscious experiences) that are ontologically subjective, i.e. can only exist as subjective experience. For example, although it might be subjective or objective in the epistemic sense, a doctor's note that a patient suffers from back pain is an ontologically objective claim: it counts as a medical diagnosis only because the existence of back pain is "an objective fact of medical science". But the pain itself is ontologically subjective: it is only experienced by the person having it.

Searle goes on to affirm that "where consciousness is concerned, the existence of the appearance is the reality". His view that the epistemic and ontological senses of objective/subjective are cleanly separable is crucial to his self-proclaimed biological naturalism.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Searl...bjectivity

[Arkilogue]

[Edwardo Piet]

Yeah I know I was making a joke.

[Arkilogue]

Yeah I know I was making a joke.

Not used to that here yet

[robvalue]

Look, I win and you're all made of cardboard.

Gemini: Well said When "studying" what is real at a philosophical level, we're doing just the same thing science does. We're coming up with pragmatic models. My model is an attempt to remove as many assumptions as possible while retaining functionality.

[Edwardo Piet]

Look, I win and you're all made of cardboard.

Darn. 1-0 to you.






* Edwardo Piet 's perception of time doesn't pass.






Fake Edit To Add: You forgot to ring the pyrotechnics to tell them your alarmist bells are most definitely not ringing.

1-1 love.

5-5 Juice.

10-10 The Jews.

11-11 Juice 'cause I said so.

1-1 Return

5-4 re
fe
fray
4-5 Refrain

0-0 Nork.






...because I'm normal like that.

[Edwardo Piet]

Gemini: Well said When "studying" what is real at a philosophical level, we're doing just the same thing science does. We're coming up with pragmatic models. My model is an attempt to remove as many assumptions as possible while retaining functionality.

3 differences between science and philosophy:

1. 99.999999% of philosophy is bollocks.


Most people know that one. But these two are often forgotten:

2. Science itself as a methodolgy came out of empiricism/natural philosophy.
3. Scientific concepts such as "falsifiability" came about through philosophers of science like Karl Popper.

Bonus:

"Like Karl Popper? Wasn't it actually Karl Popper?"
"Karl Popper is like Karl Popper. Exactly like Karl Popper."
"He's not exactly like him. He is him."
"Same thing."
"No it's not."
"Yes it is."
"Carrot cake."
"Digression."
"Okay sorry. Well it's not exactly like him. I said. It is him and that's not the same."
"So what is exactly unlike Karl Popper then?"
"I haz confus."
"Yesh."
"Oh wait but exactly like him is like his identical twin or something."
"But his identical twin is at a different point in space & time/Space-time."
"Oh right."
http://www.youtube.com/watch/?v=eot5U7DDCbE
https://www.youtube.com/watch/?v=FAQVkEI2VrY

Lol the voice in the second video sounds stoned as fuck.

Now bring on the cheese:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZ7S7ijFIGo

[robvalue]

Yup, you need a careful mix of science and philosophy. Neither are much good on their own. The classic mistake theists often make is to try and use philosophy to extend beyond what science can test. That's just totally flawed.

[Mudhammam]

Yup, you need a careful mix of science and philosophy. Neither are much good on their own. The classic mistake theists often make is to try and use philosophy to extend beyond what science can test. That's just totally flawed.

But isn't that a philosophical claim about the utility of science that cannot itself be subjected to any scientific test?  Don't get me wrong, I agree that empirical data is of utmost importance in verifying a claim.  But do I think that all knowledge depends on experience?  I think that might be difficult to establish, philosophically or scientifically!