A rose would not smell as sweet if it was called, as it likely is called in German, a sourbloodpetal. Or whatever. Naming things, getting the good names for things, brings with it many victories. In the philosophy of science a realist—which is a name most excellent—is one who believes the objects named in physical theories are real. The objects exist, as the theories say they do, in reality. Strings, for instance, are there because theory demands it. But in
What a glorious and sad day is for an empiricist who is also a scientist to see that, after careful and methodical experiments, that a hypothetical object is disproved to exist.
Glorious because now that a we know the assumed was only imaginary, we have one fewer obstacle, and we are one kiloFauci less wrong. (Fauci is the unit of "being wrong".)
Sad day too, because most other scientists will oppose the new discovery. They depend on institutions, and institutions depend on political power, which in turn depends on industries and banks. Disproving a scientific theory creates some discomfort, some irritation. Scientists fear the imaginary consequences of approximating reality using science. Scientists are as corrupt as the institutions they depend on, measured in miliRockefellers (Rockefeller is the unit of corruption.)
The empiricist and scientist who verifies that imagined things are imaginary crashes at high speed against the unexpected reality of the thorough corruption of his peers. SAD!
Ah, the term "empirically adequate" Adequate for what purpose? The ability to manipulate the world in some fashion. The person who does that (describes the world so it can be manipulated) is called an engineer.
Most of so-called scientists are in fact engineers. They don't like to be called that because engineers wear funny hats and throw coal into a boiler. Scientist is so much cleaner.
Also, "There is a distinction between being true in all respects and being true about what is observable". So, Truth is not an objective - because we know that Truth means true in all respects. Engineering looks for contingent "truths", these being predictions given certain constraints.
Now there is nothing wrong about engineers per se. Depends on what is being engineered of course. Where as actual science - the search for physical truth - can have nothing wrong with it nor with the Truth that is discovered.
Engineers don't care about reality, they care about 2 things: 1) the ability to reproduce a manipulation with some reliability, 2) reducing cost. And maybe a third: getting paid.
There is a series of very interesting videos on Youtube which basically show how to explain things (eg Gravity) to a 1st grader, a 12th grader and a PhD student. Depending on your background knowledge, and your need to use the information, there are very different realities about things.
You don't need to know the crystalline arrangement of a piece of metal to use a knife to cut some string.
Philosophy (physics, evolution, religion, politics, sex) is an interesting pastime as long as you don't take it, or yourself, too seriously. Discussing whether something is 'real' or just a rearrangement of chemicals in your fevered mind is fine except that you have just burned off your hand.
Reality has a knack of taking us down the path of our choice without our noticing except that the going is smooth. And so we travel on and on. Ever deeper into the wood of our own absurdities.
All the while reality is waiting for us to come to our senses. The real question is how much patience does she have.
Mortimer Adler held that “truth is the sovereign idea by which we judge. He believed that beauty is a special kind of goodness, which is itself a special kind of truth. He also held that truth—by distinguishing certain from doubtful judgments, and by differentiating matters of taste and matters of truth—provides the ground for understanding beauty and goodness. “
Born a Jew, he converted to Anglicanism, and then Catholicism on his deathbed.
Personal hero of mine. He wrote a lot of great books.
Matters of truth are where disputes are fruitful, matters of taste are where disputes are not.
I like hockey, you like baseball - that is clearly a matter of taste.
I think light is made of both particles and waves, you think only waves…
Quantum mechanics defends biblical creation. There are linguistic tells: big bang theory and God particle. For God to exist, it is necessary that space and time precede matter's existence.
Newtonian physics holds at atomic scale. Time is a consequence of matter like light. See how at https://twitter.com/Mark_Pollina
Yes science does not and can not describe Reality as It Is which is necessarily prior to any thought process however seemingly insightful.
Nor can Christian philosophers/theologians because all of their philosophy and/or theology is based on self serving mind created constructs too.
So too with the "catholic" church the primary purpose of which is to gain power and-control over all of humankind. Go ye therefore and convert all nations to the "one true way"
Feser's five "proofs" are just pretentious posturing.
At another level we "spend" a third of lives in bed wherein the seemingly solid world disappears both in the dream state wherein everything becomes a psychic fluid plastic indefinable realm.
And in the state of deep restful dreamless state wherein we are relieved of the inherent stress of having to deal with apparent others and a multitude of things. Such dreamless sleep is in effect a poor man's Samadhi.
While I take the point that the statistical notion of chance is a tool of thought, and not intrinsic to reality, I still wonder if it is really the case that chance, or true randomness, does not physically exist?
What a glorious and sad day is for an empiricist who is also a scientist to see that, after careful and methodical experiments, that a hypothetical object is disproved to exist.
Glorious because now that a we know the assumed was only imaginary, we have one fewer obstacle, and we are one kiloFauci less wrong. (Fauci is the unit of "being wrong".)
Sad day too, because most other scientists will oppose the new discovery. They depend on institutions, and institutions depend on political power, which in turn depends on industries and banks. Disproving a scientific theory creates some discomfort, some irritation. Scientists fear the imaginary consequences of approximating reality using science. Scientists are as corrupt as the institutions they depend on, measured in miliRockefellers (Rockefeller is the unit of corruption.)
The empiricist and scientist who verifies that imagined things are imaginary crashes at high speed against the unexpected reality of the thorough corruption of his peers. SAD!
Ah, the term "empirically adequate" Adequate for what purpose? The ability to manipulate the world in some fashion. The person who does that (describes the world so it can be manipulated) is called an engineer.
Most of so-called scientists are in fact engineers. They don't like to be called that because engineers wear funny hats and throw coal into a boiler. Scientist is so much cleaner.
Also, "There is a distinction between being true in all respects and being true about what is observable". So, Truth is not an objective - because we know that Truth means true in all respects. Engineering looks for contingent "truths", these being predictions given certain constraints.
Now there is nothing wrong about engineers per se. Depends on what is being engineered of course. Where as actual science - the search for physical truth - can have nothing wrong with it nor with the Truth that is discovered.
Engineers don't care about reality, they care about 2 things: 1) the ability to reproduce a manipulation with some reliability, 2) reducing cost. And maybe a third: getting paid.
There is a series of very interesting videos on Youtube which basically show how to explain things (eg Gravity) to a 1st grader, a 12th grader and a PhD student. Depending on your background knowledge, and your need to use the information, there are very different realities about things.
You don't need to know the crystalline arrangement of a piece of metal to use a knife to cut some string.
Philosophy (physics, evolution, religion, politics, sex) is an interesting pastime as long as you don't take it, or yourself, too seriously. Discussing whether something is 'real' or just a rearrangement of chemicals in your fevered mind is fine except that you have just burned off your hand.
Reality has a knack of taking us down the path of our choice without our noticing except that the going is smooth. And so we travel on and on. Ever deeper into the wood of our own absurdities.
All the while reality is waiting for us to come to our senses. The real question is how much patience does she have.
Mortimer Adler held that “truth is the sovereign idea by which we judge. He believed that beauty is a special kind of goodness, which is itself a special kind of truth. He also held that truth—by distinguishing certain from doubtful judgments, and by differentiating matters of taste and matters of truth—provides the ground for understanding beauty and goodness. “
Born a Jew, he converted to Anglicanism, and then Catholicism on his deathbed.
Personal hero of mine. He wrote a lot of great books.
Matters of truth are where disputes are fruitful, matters of taste are where disputes are not.
I like hockey, you like baseball - that is clearly a matter of taste.
I think light is made of both particles and waves, you think only waves…
Let’s discuss that.
Quantum mechanics defends biblical creation. There are linguistic tells: big bang theory and God particle. For God to exist, it is necessary that space and time precede matter's existence.
Newtonian physics holds at atomic scale. Time is a consequence of matter like light. See how at https://twitter.com/Mark_Pollina
Join me. Become a realisht.
Yes science does not and can not describe Reality as It Is which is necessarily prior to any thought process however seemingly insightful.
Nor can Christian philosophers/theologians because all of their philosophy and/or theology is based on self serving mind created constructs too.
So too with the "catholic" church the primary purpose of which is to gain power and-control over all of humankind. Go ye therefore and convert all nations to the "one true way"
Feser's five "proofs" are just pretentious posturing.
At another level we "spend" a third of lives in bed wherein the seemingly solid world disappears both in the dream state wherein everything becomes a psychic fluid plastic indefinable realm.
And in the state of deep restful dreamless state wherein we are relieved of the inherent stress of having to deal with apparent others and a multitude of things. Such dreamless sleep is in effect a poor man's Samadhi.
Naming and counting objects is not enough, for this does not describe the life experience. But you said that.
While I take the point that the statistical notion of chance is a tool of thought, and not intrinsic to reality, I still wonder if it is really the case that chance, or true randomness, does not physically exist?