Stimpson J. Cat said:
Davidsmith,
What is all of this "roughly" nonsense?
When I talk about the assumptions of science, I am not talking about the assumptions you must make to account for the fact that, so far, science has seemed to work pretty well. I am talking about the assumptions you must make in order to claim that the scientific method will work.
What is the difference between the assumptions you must make to account for the fact that, so far, science has seemed to work pretty well and the assumptions you must make in order to claim that the scientific method
will work ? You have identified the latter (below) but not the former. The way I see it, both assumptions are one and the same.
Objectivity is one of the axioms of science. You can apply the scientific method without making this assumption, but if you do so, then you are just treating it as a heuristic, not as an actual logical framework for understanding the world.
Objectivity is indeed one of the axioms of science. However, we are trying to reach a conclusion as to whether this assumption of objectivity is valid. You can't use this assumption as a premise to then logically show how it is valid.
I agree you can apply the scientific method without the assumption of objectivity. And indeed if you do this you would not be able to use science as a framework for understanding the "world" but this "world" is the objective one.
Like I said, the very fact that reality functions according to logical rules, rules which we are not directly aware of, implies that there is more to reality than just our experiences.
That is not a fact. It is an assumption that is unfalsifiable. In reply to the "whats this roughly nonsense" comment, I am refering to the
fact that
no experience conforms to a consistent, stable and logical construction in an exact way. And claiming that its a fact that we are not directly aware of logical rules is again applying the assumption that these rules have an objective existence. Again, logical fallacy. In fact its plain to see that we
are aware of these rules we contructed them in the first place.
Even if you take the metaphysical view that reality is constructed by your mind, you are assuming the existence of some part of your mind which is external to your experiences.
I have not taken the view that reality is constructed by your mind. Reality is Consciousness. The illusion of objective physical reality is constructed by your mind.
The axioms of science, of which the claim that reality functions according to consistent logical rules is one, constitute a falsifiable hypothesis. Namely the hypothesis that science will work.
How does this address what I said ? What do you mean by science "working". Do you mean these axioms will enable us to gain objective knowledge ? If so, then you have to first make the assumption of objectivity ! This is the assumption that we are trying to justify in the debate. You can't justify it by first making the assumption of objectivity and then show how science (which is based on this assumption) can give us knowledge about objective reality !
That is nonsensical. In order for the scientific method to give us any knowledge at all, there must be knowledge for it to give us.
Under idealism this must be knowledge about the relationships between aspects of our experience. Science works on forming relationships between observations. The debate here is whether we are justified in giving these relationships a separate ontological existence (objectivity) to the realm from which we extracted these relationships (Consciousness).
There must be facts about reality that it can reveal to us. In short, there must be more to reality than just our experiences.
Or there must be relationships within the realm of Consciousness that we are able to extract. We extract these relationships from experiences and they manifest within the realm of Consciousness. Consciousness has not been supervened.
note: I speak of Consciousness and Experience. I actually give the same meaning to each as a unified collective term, not any individual, isolated qualia such as redness. It is the quality of
pure Consciousness that can be regarded as the nature of reality. it is the quality that is common to
any individual experience we can identify.
What part of the above did you not understand? If there is some aspect of your mind which you do not have direct conscious access to, then it is something beyond your experiences.
Your statement doesn't make sense. Having an "aspect of your mind" you do not have "conscious access" to is a contradiction. Perhaps you could expand on your definition of "mind" and "conscious access" in this context. Remember that I am using Experience (I have given it a capital to avoid confusion) to mean a common quality to every individual experience we have. I'll also call that Consciousness. There would have to be something beyond Consciousness itself. An aspect of your mind is not beyond Consciousness even if it is a contructed logical framework.
Even Idealism must posit the existence of something beyond your actual experiences, even if it only assumes that this something is just another part of your mind.
There is a subtle distinction to what I'm saying. I'm saying there is nothing beyond Experience. Thats different to saying there is nothing beyond my experiences. My experiences change. Your "mind" changes and is not equivalent to Consciousness.
