davidsmith,
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.
Any number of assumptions could account for the fact that, up till now, science has seemed to work. Such assumptions may or may not imply that science will continue to work, and will work for all observable phenomena.
The scientific framework I have presented is the minimal set of assumptions necessary to logically derive the scientific method. The assumption that reality is objective is one necessary assumption in that framework. So is the assumption that reality functions according to consistent logical rules, and the assumption that those rules can, in principle, be derived from our observations.
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.
The very idea of trying to demonstrate that an axiom is valid, is nonsensical. If you could do that it would not be an axiom.
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.
That's the whole point. The purpose of science is to understand the world around us. If you simply assume that there is no World, and only your experiences, then there is nothing there to be understood.
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.
How can we apply the scientific method if we don't assume that there are rules for science to find? Once again, this assumption is an axiom. Nobody is claiming that it can be proven!
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.
That is just semantics. Either way, the fact remains that you are assuming the existence of more than just your experiences, regardless of whether that additional stuff is assumed to be part of your mind, or something else entirely.
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 !
I mean quite simply that science makes predictions about what we expect to observe. Those predictions are testable. Science can be clearly and unambiguously demonstrated to work. If it did not, then that would falsify the axioms of science. None of them individually can be falsified, but the framework can.
That is how it works with any scientific theory. The individual claims of the theory, taken out of context, cannot be falsified, because you could always invent ad-hoc explanations for why the predictions of the theory failed. But the theory as a whole is falsifiable.
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).
Once again, without a sound logical framework from which the scientific method can be logically derived, there is no logical way for us to model the relationships between our observations. It is simply not logically possible to do this without making some assumptions about the nature of those relationships.
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.
Irrelevant semantics. It doesn't make any difference whether you claim it is part of consciousness or not. It is still something more than just our experiences.
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.
In other words, you are assuming that there is more to it than just the experiences. You are also making assumptions about its nature.
You can't get around the assumption of objectivity. Any statement of the form "This is how things are" has a built in assumption of objectivity.
Even idealism assumes the existence of an objective reality. It just makes the additional assumptions about the nature of that reality.
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.
If there is nothing more to your mind than what you have direct conscious access to, and everything that exists is part of your mind, then it is not possible for there to be anything that you do not know. Surely you are not claiming to be omniscient?
Like I said before, there must be more to reality that just your experiences for there to be any knowledge about reality for science to provide you with.
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.
If there is a difference between "Experience", and your experiences, then you are assuming the existence of something beyond just your experiences. You are assuming objectivity.
Dr. Stupid
Of course it makes a difference if you claim it is part of consciousness or not. Consciousness is the realm that objectivity is claimed to be ontologically separate from ! If your experience of the thing is the thing then there is nothing outside that realm of existence.