talkmagic.co.uk

greedoniz wrote:no such thing as cold hard fact I'm afraid.

Disagree. There is, in fact, such thing as cold, hard fact (metaphorically, of course; I am speaking of objective truth/reality).

To assert otherwise is, of course, self-annihilating...

I agree that claiming to speak to the dead, especially for gain at the expense of the distraught is deplorable. Sylvia Browne has done far more harm than good with her revelations. "An' it harm none, do what thou wilt." "Love is the Law, Love under Will"...keep these in mind, and enjoy the show.

What is objective reality? Seriously.

Palmer Eldritch wrote:What is objective reality? Seriously.

It pertains to the correspondence or lack thereof that a truth claim has, or does not have, to the actual state of circumstances, happenings, or events.

As an example obvious enough to be silly, if you still believe (as Galileo had to pretend to) that the earth's place in the universe is fixed, there's no "agree to disagree." You're just WRONG. The earth moves around the sun. That's objective reality.

The statement that there is no such thing as objective reality, or "cold hard fact" is by its own terms a bit silly, as it's a factual claim. "There are no objective facts" cannot be an objective fact; by its own nature, it's a paradox. It's one that's easily resolved --- There ARE, of course, objective facts; the statement "There are no objective facts" just isn't one of them.

While I would agree with your definition of an objective reality, I'm more hesitant to accept your assertion that those who don't believe the earth orbits the sun or whatever are wrong.

Certainly they're wrong based on the world we encounter, but who's to say that the world we encounter is the same world that exists independently of human perception (if one exists at all)? The objective reality might in fact be that the sun orbits the earth and the earth does a merry little jig every twenty-four hours. We cannot know.

Cardza wrote:While I would agree with your definition of an objective reality, I'm more hesitant to accept your assertion that those who don't believe the earth orbits the sun or whatever are wrong.

Certainly they're wrong based on the world we encounter, but who's to say that the world we encounter is the same world that exists independently of human perception (if one exists at all)?

I'd say they're certainly NOT the same (at least not always). The world we encounter through our human perception is one in which the Catholic church was right -- the sun moves around the earth. You can observe that every day through human sensory perception.

You seem to me to be raising a separate but related issue -- whether knowledge is possible. The initial query was into reality, your "world that exists independently of human perception." As to the earth revolving around the sun, either it does, or it doesn't (at least according to adherents of The law of the excluded middle).

As far as the initial question as to the existence of cold, hard facts, or objective reality, regardless of any limitations on our ability to ascertain knowledge about what's really going on with the earth and the sun, one of the following statements is true:

1. The earth revolves around the sun.
2. The earth does not revolve around the sun.

Either way, the "cold, hard fact" of the relationship between the earth and the sun exists, and is completely independent of our ability to "know" which is the case.

All of which is to say that even if you take the position "We really don't know whether the earth revolves around the sun or not," there still exist cold, hard facts and an objective reality about the nature of the universe. Saying that those facts are not subject to our certain grasp is not the same as saying that they don't exist (and I don't mean to suggest that you implied otherwise; this is a bit of a callback to the earlier posts).

All that being said, I'm pretty confident that the earth is not, in fact, stationary. Even the church gave up that position in the early 1990's.

Great thread....you will all enjoy reading Fear of Knowledge whatever side of this particular debate you are on....

LobowolfXXX wrote:As far as the initial question as to the existence of cold, hard facts, or objective reality, regardless of any limitations on our ability to ascertain knowledge about what's really going on with the earth and the sun, one of the following statements is true:

1. The earth revolves around the sun.
2. The earth does not revolve around the sun.

you could argue that there should be a third point, of:
3. does something else altogether that we are not yet aware of

it could be that the earth revolves "a bit", and the sun does too, thus giving the illusion of a full orbit...

i just like arguing

i think "a bit" is a technical term...it was used to build concorde.

In questioning objective reality I'm not trying to refute science. However I do think science as it stands is flawed. Currently our so called rational thinking is stained by two major flaws.
One such flaw is the notion of Occam’s razor; it is treated as a feature of an objectified form of reasoning when in truth it is little more than an aesthetic.

The second (and more important) flaw is a notion that is so insidious it goes almost unnoticed and yet it is present in almost every 'rational' assertion about reality. I am referring to Cartesian dualism; rearing its head in every ontology, from consciousness (think phenomenology) to often absurdly linear causal notions (for example the belief that the universe has/hasn't a start point or that fundamental particles exist/don't exist (a false dichotomy that leads to either infinite regress or an absolute end/start point)).
The objectification of nature (categorizing it into living and dead matter) yielded great results for classical physics, but such a viewpoint is already becoming severely outmoded. Quantum physics supports a much more pan-psychic view of the universe than anything akin to the traditional materialist (or physicalist) model.

Nonetheless it is of course impossible to prove that no ultimate, objective reality exists, but that does not make the converse necessarily true.
Scientists routinely reject models in favour of more affective models, (perhaps) in the belief that the new model is closer to describing objective reality, but it is still a matter of faith that objective reality exists as the light at the end of the causal tunnel.

Cardza wrote:but who's to say that the world we encounter is the same world that exists independently of human perception (if one exists at all)? The objective reality might in fact be that the sun orbits the earth and the earth does a merry little jig every twenty-four hours. We cannot know.

who's to say?

seriously... mumbo jumbo doesn't achieve greatness, solve problems or save lives... humans do. We do a lot of c*** (not the best) stuff as well but as soon as we start with the "exists independently of human perception" gobble-dee-goop we may as well throw everything out and start again. Human perception is a key criteria... for us humans.

But it cannot be denied that human perception is not a key criteria in defining objective features of the universe...

Nonetheless it would be absurd to refute the fact that the earth does indeed orbit the sun. In human terms this is an established "way things are", however it is pushing the boat out to presume that the way we describe things as they manifest in 3D space within a 4D construct as somehow ultimately objective.
On a metaphysical level, such a statement is analogous to a tautology. It is a divisive and loaded statement. It contains terms that are precisely defined in relation to each other and to human observations (in mathematical/mechanical and perceptual terms).

Arguably a sufficiently objective perspective would most likely see the terms 'Sun', 'Earth' and 'orbit' and all they entail to human beings, simply melt away. Here I am attempting to describe a kind of multi dimensional relativism, and yes I know it's speculative and metaphysical but that is my point. Any discussion of genuine objective reality is a metaphysical concern and not a scientific one, but in the same breath I am not refuting those things we take to be hard facts. Yes truth can exist, it’s just that the weight of truth lessens the further we take it out of its paradigm. It’s analogous to the effects of relativity on objects with mass travelling faster than light; distance (something we might take to be on objective feature of reality) becomes relative.

B0bbY_CaT wrote:seriously... mumbo jumbo doesn't achieve greatness, solve problems or save lives... humans do. We do a lot of c*** (not the best) stuff as well but as soon as we start with the "exists independently of human perception" gobble-dee-goop we may as well throw everything out and start again. Human perception is a key criteria... for us humans.

At what point did I say that we should all sit back and do nothing because we cannot (and that's not "mumbo jumbo" or "gobble-dee-goop", it's the truth) know the truth about the world we inhabit? I didn't.

David Hume drew the distinction between himself the Philosopher and himself the man, and the same applies here. In a discussion about reality, my post is entirely valid.

Please don't put words in my mouth.

Has anyone gone back to Descartes yet, and the idea that the only thing he was sure of was that he was definitely thinking? That much he knew, but he wasn't sure abut the rest of reality. Cool dude, yer actual Descartes. Refused to get out of bed until lunchtime and did all his thinking in an oven.

Dare I utter the dread initials N, L, and P, and offer up the central premise that what we perceive isn't reality at all, but a map of reality, spun from and updated by our senses?

Or perhaps an old Phillip K. Dick quote about reality being all the stuff that doesn't go away when you stop believing in it.

Philosophy is a great discipline but never comes up with anything but people (most have done an A level in it and all of a sudden know more than Bertrand Russell) trying to be overly clever by questioning the whole reality of it all.
Well if that is the case then nothing can ever be achieved as all of it is subjective to the person experiencing it all and blah blah blah.

I think if several probes have been launched from earth and sling shot around several planets purely using the laws of motion and the idea that earth revolves around the sun then I think it is pretty certain that maybe that concept is a sound one.

It's a good job there are people out there discovering, experimenting and inventing things that improve our lives.
If it were a planet of philosophers we'd all still be hurling rocks but arguing over whether they are real or not

If it cant be seen with the human eye or heard with the human ear then it is not real.