Proving What We Already "Know"

[Neo-Scholastic]

Not to be too tangental but it seems to me that the whole conversation hinges on what someone considers to be "real". If one starts with the assumption that matter/energy and its operation exhaust the category then there is not much room left, none actually, to talk about the reality of intangible things such as triangles, holes, and past events.

It also seems careless to me if we just assume that "objective" equals "real," and "subjective" equals "illusion." 

It's not so simple.

Indeed. One of the reasons I admire Scholastic philosophy is their inordinate concern for the percise distinctions and definitions. Lately I been thinking a lot about the term "objective". I am reasonably certain a physicalist, such as @polymath, would consider himself objective. However, without an ontology that addresses the problem of universals there can be no true objects, just heaps. What I am saying is that SINCE physicialism cannot escape meteorological nihilism, AND since in meteorological nihilsm heaps never truly become objects (there are not objects); THEREFORE, physicalism cannot be objective.

[Angrboda]

Meteorological nihilism?  

[The Grand Nudger]

What's wrong with "the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment"?  I think it's pretty clear that a thing true today may not be true tomorrow, that a thing true of one location in space may not be true of another, and that the apprehensions of all observers are not uniform.

That's fine, but then you have to define all those terms.

Really?  That's alot of words up there.  IDK...I kind f figured you were a fellow english speaker.

Lets try something more targeted.  Some...but surely not all......of the wrod above ruffle your feathers.  Which ones? Why?

[Belacqua]

Meteorological nihilism?  

Autocorrect doesn't like "mereological."

[Belacqua]

It also seems careless to me if we just assume that "objective" equals "real," and "subjective" equals "illusion." 

It's not so simple.

Indeed. One of the reasons I admire Scholastic philosophy is their inordinate concern for the percise distinctions and definitions. Lately I been thinking a lot about the term "objective". I am reasonably certain a physicalist, such as @polymath, would consider himself objective. However, without an ontology that addresses the problem of universals there can be no true objects, just heaps. What I am saying is that SINCE physicialism cannot escape meteorological nihilism, AND since in meteorological nihilsm heaps never truly become objects (there are not objects); THEREFORE, physicalism cannot be objective.

Here's something to puzzle us further:

https://alioshabielenberg.com/objectivit...-and-marx/

[bennyboy]

That's fine, but then you have to define all those terms.

Really?  That's alot of words up there.  IDK...I kind f figured you were a fellow english speaker.

Lets try something more targeted.  Some...but surely not all......of the wrod above ruffle your feathers.  Which ones?  Why?

Okay, let's start with "physical."  What does that word mean to you?  How about "natural?"  In daily conversation, those words are sensible enough: "I sustained actual physical damage, not just psychological," or "hemp is a natural fiber, as opposed to nylon."

But in the context of empty tables vs. solid ones, and the discussion of utility of perceptions that don't accurately portray the world, then I would need more precise definitions to understand the axioms that underly your definition of science, or the assertions you are making about it.

For example, what if I amended your definition to "the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the world through observation and experiment"? Would dropping the words "physical" or "natural" substantively change the meaning of your definition of science? Did you simply mean to exclude introspectionism from the definition of science, or are you implying that there are multiple worlds which might be studied, with science studying only that/those which are of a certain type?

[Ranjr]

I think you meant "instrospectionismizationism."

[bennyboy]

I think you meant "instrospectionismizationism."

That might be how you hear it.  I'm pretty sure it's not how I mean it. 

[Ranjr]

That might be how you hear it.  I'm pretty sure it's not how I mean it. 

I didn't hear a thing.

[The Grand Nudger]

Really?  That's alot of words up there.  IDK...I kind f figured you were a fellow english speaker.

Lets try something more targeted.  Some...but surely not all......of the wrod above ruffle your feathers.  Which ones?  Why?

Okay, let's start with "physical."  What does that word mean to you?  How about "natural?"  In daily conversation, those words are sensible enough: "I sustained actual physical damage, not just psychological," or "hemp is a natural fiber, as opposed to nylon."

But in the context of empty tables vs. solid ones, and the discussion of utility of perceptions that don't accurately portray the world, then I would need more precise definitions to understand the axioms that underly your definition of science, or the assertions you are making about it.

For example, what if I amended your definition to "the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the world through observation and experiment"?  Would dropping the words "physical" or "natural" substantively change the meaning of your definition of science?  Did you simply mean to exclude introspectionism from the definition of science, or are you implying that there are multiple worlds which might be studied, with science studying only that/those which are of a certain type?

You can use world if you like, all I did was copy paste a definition.  Just like you could sub out "anything that interacts" for natural and physical so that we could at least entertain the possibility of many worlds.  That said, the things you offered as murky examples aren't really murky.  A table, as the solid object we perceive..or as mostly empty space, is physical and natural in both cases, just as our perceptions that don't accurately portray the world (or ourselves) are.  

See, the physical and natural world I have in mind encompasses all the things you might care to include...empty tables and full heads...so there's really no reason to bicker about it as though it excludes something - which..I'm pretty sure, is whats ruffling your feathers.  Maybe you should just cut to the moneyshot? There's something of value to you, either science or just words..somehow..exclude it, or you fear as much. What? If you could have an unguarded conversation about it, there's an extremely good chance that your fear in that regard is misplaced. Introspection, for example, is neither ruled out, nor unapproachable. There's a whole branch of science about it, after all.