Does anything exist?

[Steve]

I am reminded of the kid, sitting in the front of the class, who complains to the lecturer that the imaginary kid at the back of the class has snorted an imaginary snort, and should be ordered to leave the lecture room.

Your turn . . .

Seems the person you are replying to via this non-existent forum and the non-existent internet on your non-existent computer does not actually exist. More of a 'hallucination' that appears in your very own non-existent brain.

The really great thing about 'hallucinations' is that they can be ignored, or even ridiculed, with no repercussions (right, non-existent mods? ).

 

[IanS]

BTW, the other day I ran into this VDO (Sabine Hossenfelder) re what science can say about what is real - the first minute of the video - this is how I learned and read about science, and what I was referring to earlier in this thread. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTWmz9k7v9M.

If this (that sort of nutty internet video) is how you learned about science, then you have been seriously misled and learned a lot of untrue nonsense from people who post films on the internet where they are tying to push an agenda of mystical new-age woo woo.

Do you actually know how to tell the difference between real scientists, real science research papers, and fake conspiracy theory type nonsense and new-age woo that's plastered all over the internet?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Getting into an argument with a duelist is always serious whatever his philosophy, even if you have fencing practice on your to-do-list.

None of my spell checkers seem to recognize "Dualist" as a word most of the time for some reason.

 

[lomiller]

First of all I think this is the same women who I saw a year or so ago in a video about hidden dimensions of reality (or something like that), it was actually a video presenting complete woo. It was made to look authoritative, but it was actually unscientific garbage presented as a attempt to deceive impressionable people who have little or no genuine education in research science ... the first 30 sec of what she was saying in your link looks EXACTLY like that ...

The single biggest source of woo is people who *think* they are being rational empirical skeptics, but fail because they don't understand what science does and does not tell them. They think they are free to ignore any science that "hasn't been proven". They think that as log as they can find even a tiny unknown or tiny inconstancy "it's not proven, and therefor they get to believe something else".

Since ALL science is ultimately unproven and unprovable this mindset is nothing more than a licence to ignore any and all science they find inconvenient. This happens because people don't think about science properly and therefor don't understand what it does and does not tell us. We trust science because it works, it allows us to make airplanes, computers, satellites , etc and makes reliable predictions about how the universe around us will behave. It does nothing more and nothing less, but this in and of itself is more than enough.

 

[lomiller]

If this (that sort of nutty internet video) is how you learned about science, then you have been seriously misled and learned a lot of untrue nonsense from people who post films on the internet where they are tying to push an agenda of mystical new-age woo woo.

Do you actually know how to tell the difference between real scientists, real science research papers, and fake conspiracy theory type nonsense and new-age woo that's plastered all over the internet?

A good starting point is if they are trying to tell you "what's true" there is a good chance it's woo. If they are trying to tell you what fits the available data then it's science. You seem to be advocating for the former, the video in question is advocating the latter.

I do think you have a valid argument when you say many scientist don't think this way, but you should also consider the number of prominent important scientists who stray outside their field and fall prey to climate denial, ant-vax, and all manor of other woo and believe all the while that "they are just being empirical skeptics"

 

[JoeMorgue]

Scratch a philosopher and you'll almost always find someone mad at the idea of intellectual standards.

 

[LarryS]

I watched the first minute.

First of all I think this is the same women who I saw a year or so ago in a video about hidden dimensions of reality (or something like that), it was actually a video presenting complete woo. It was made to look authoritative, but it was actually unscientific garbage presented as a attempt to deceive impressionable people who have little or no genuine education in research science ... the first 30 sec of what she was saying in your link looks EXACTLY like that ...

... she starts by immediately claiming "scientists say something exists if it is useful to explain observations", she says that is what scientists mean by "existing". OK, well that is thoroughly misleading garbage to start with - scientists do not say things exist on such a basis as that ... she is trying to dismiss and minimise what science can say about the world around us, and she is doing that as she then immediately reveals, to claim that philosophy is needed to explain what is real (not science!). If you believe this sort of internet conspiracy theory crap, then it's no wonder that you have a seriously misguided and frankly uneducated view/belief about the world.


Scientists do not generally say anything about "reality". They do not need to. All that we need to do is to study and explain whatever our senses and our experimental systems detect. So called "reality" does not come into it. Because there is no reason to doubt it. If someone like Sabine or any philosophers claim that the observed reality may not exist, then it's their burden to show how and why that is true (or even possible) ... science does not need to do anything like that ... we just study and explain what we are confronted with.

If you do not believe that things actually exist, eg a bus, or your computer or yourself, then all of the burden is upon you to explain how and why none of that exists.

Your post comes off as an emotional rant and it's not clear what you are saying. So according to Ian . . .
If I or Sabine are wrong, on what basis do scientists say something exists?
If scientists do not generally say anything about reality, then what are they speaking about?
This is not about going postal on philosophy, this is not about what you or I or Sabine might say about what is real - this is about science.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Discussing politics, silence from philosophy fanboys.
Discussing sports, silence from philosophy fanboys.
Discussing the price of tea in China, silence from philosophy fanboys.
Discussing science... //screeching about how just who is this science person to tell us stuff just where does it get off PROVE TO ME REALITY IS REAL I DEMAND IT//

If you turn into a philosopher every time someone tries to tell you a fact, you're just a Woo Slinger with pretensions.

 

[IanS]

Your post comes off as an emotional rant and it's not clear what you are saying. So according to Ian . . .
If I or Sabine are wrong, on what basis do scientists say something exists?
If scientists do not generally say anything about reality, then what are they speaking about?This is not about going postal on philosophy, this is not about what you or I or Sabine might say about what is real - this is about science.

Scientists don't need to bother getting into arguments about whether reality exists. And I just said that to you above.

Look at the highlight of your own question ... do you really now know what the answer is? You are trying to claim that just because scientists detect things as "reality", just as we all detect everything around us as "reality", that means (according to what you are now trying to say) that scientists must be getting into claiming that what they detect must be "reality" ... but as I just explained (several times) that does not follow! ... all we have to do is investigate and explain whatever we detect ... if philosophers want to argue that what we detect is not actually "real" then that is their problem, and it appears to be your as well!

 

[JoeMorgue]

"Does reality exist" is not a valid question.

Therefore "Philosophy" does not get credit for asking it (and accepting no possible answer or even way to get an answer, just turtling all the way down) nor does "science" need to have points taken off for just ignoring it for the nonsense it is.

 

[lomiller]

If you turn into a philosopher every time someone tries to tell you a fact, you're just a Woo Slinger with pretensions.

Scientific theories are not facts. If you equate them to facts you give woo-woo types the opportunity to "disprove" them by pointing to the faults, limitations, unknowns or inconsistencies that all scientific theories invariably have.


A major misconception a few people have is that "Philosophers question whether reality exists". This is not the case at all. "I think therefor I am" was part of a though experiment. The goal was to use skepticism to prove the structure and nature of reality from incontrovertibly true first principles. This approach failed, meaning that if we take a stance of absolute skepticism we will never be able to understand the universe.

It did, however result in a philosophical a framework for understanding what we should trust and why we should trust it, and how we can investigate the universe when our senses mislead us about how the universe works. This philosophical framework is arguably the most important underpinning for scientific inquiry and getting it wrong leads to all kinds of woo and mangled science.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The imaginary hairsplit between "facts" and "truth" (or anything even remotely similar) is silly word games.

"Useful information that accurately describes things." Call it whatever you want.

 

[lomiller]

Scientists don't need to bother getting into arguments about whether reality exists.

Neither do philosophers, in fact they proved to everyone's satisfaction that reality does exist. The question philosophers were asking is "what happens if we can't trust our sense to give us accurate information about the world around us." It turns out that modern physics tells us reality is indeed nothing like what our sense show us.

 

[lomiller]

The imaginary hairsplit between "facts" and "truth" (or anything even remotely similar) is silly word games.

"Useful information that accurately describes things." Call it whatever you want.

Have you ever talked to a climate science denier? They will continually assert that "the science isn't proven" based on the slightest perceived inconstancy inaccuracy or unknow. So will AIDS deniers, Truthers, Birthers, Flat Earthers, etc, etc, etc.

Shouting about truth isn't a logically sound rebuttal because the unknowns and inconsistencies can be very real. Science gets around such problems by using a framework where such inconsistencies don't matter, but you MUST understand how and why that framework functions if you are going to figure out when the unknowns and inconstancies matter and when they don't.

You could just trust someone else's assessment, but then you still need to figure out who to trust and who not to trust.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Have you ever talked to a climate science denier? They will continually assert that "the science isn't proven" based on the slightest perceived inconstancy inaccuracy or unknow. So will AIDS deniers, Truthers, Birthers, Flat Earthers, etc, etc, etc.

Sounds exactly like philosophers.

 

[lomiller]

Sounds exactly like philosophers.

In what way?

 

[LarryS]

"Does reality exist" is not a valid question.
Therefore "Philosophy" does not get credit for asking it (and accepting no possible answer or even way to get an answer, just turtling all the way down) nor does "science" need to have points taken off for just ignoring it for the nonsense it is.

Agreed to your highlighted above - but we've moved beyond that.
Can/does science say that (1) photons exist, or, does science suggest that (2) photons exist as the results of the observation(s) of photons are consistent with models.
Sabine and I are suggesting (2); Ian is all over the place - how about you?

 

[Belz...]

Scratch a philosopher and you'll almost always find someone mad at the idea of intellectual standards.

Ouch.

 

[Belz...]

Can/does science say that (1) photons exist, or, does science suggest that (2) photons exist as the results of the observation(s) of photons are consistent with models.

If you knew anything about what science is, you'd realise that both are one and the same. This "philosophical" nonsense about what things "actually are" in contrast with what they do and how that impacts us is pointless and wasteful.

 

[JoeMorgue]

If you knew anything about what science is, you'd realise that both are one and the same. This "philosophical" nonsense about what things "actually are" in contrast with what they do and how that impacts us is pointless and wasteful.

And this sort of distinction without difference is at the core.

"Okay it's a fact but is it... da truth!?"
"You can explain the sensation of red but can you explain... *dramatic pause* the QUALIA OMG PONIES I'M SO DEEP."
"Yes I see where science has explained ketchup, but now show me where science has explained catsup."
Every science can't explain "consciousness" (i.e. a soul) argument.

99% of discourse of this type is:

"Science can explain X, but not Y."
"Okay so what is the difference between X and Y?"
"Well you see X and Y are the same except Y has some added on quality that science can't explain."
"Well what is Y's added on quality?"
"The part of that science can't explain."
"No but what is it? What does Y have that X doesn't?"
"Y has a quality that science can explain."
"WHAT IS THAT QUALITY?"
"The difference between X and Y."