Epistemology: How Does Realism Overcome Idealism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MindOverMatter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You simply evoke the old - but not time honored - “science can explain everything” hypothesis.
Imitation is the highest form of flattery, and you do it all the time. Nice! 🙂 And where did your “everything” come from? On the other hand, science has a pretty decent track record. The “gaps” for your god are constantly shrinking. Lightning is no longer believed to be the flaming sword of God, is it? Diseases are not caused by demons, are they?
Whatever we are unable to explain fully must have a natural origin - even though you have not even defined “natural”, which is a convenient way of accommodating new discoveries. The goal posts of naturalism can be shifted indefinitely…
Natural is everything that exists in reality. There is no place for the supernatural. The goalposts of science are constantly changing, that is for sure, and they are expanding - just like the realm for the supernatural is contantly shrinking. Science gains acceptance at the cost of the unscientific, superstitious, unnatural ideas, which are getting outdated, more and more so - every day.
What precise reasons are there for believing everything has a physical origin? Does truth have a physical origin?
We speak of “truth” is when our understanding of reality corresponds to reality, or when something is the logical corollary of some axioms. Nothing more, nothing less. There is no such thing as “truth”, aside from these.
 
Imitation is the highest form of flattery, and you do it all the time. Nice! 🙂 And where did your “everything” come from? On the other hand, science has a pretty decent track record. The “gaps” for your god are constantly shrinking. Lightning is no longer believed to be the flaming sword of God, is it? Diseases are not caused by demons, are they?
Did you know that there are things that are in principle outside the explanatory power of science? Science will never answer them. This idea that science is shrinking all the gaps in our knowledge and is powerful enough to answer all the questions rightfully asked by philosophy, is a popular myth. If you want to explain physics, then you must posit a transcendent immaterial being that created physics along with all its laws.
Natural is everything that exists in reality.
Yes; but all of that which is natural isn’t necessarily physical or inert. We usually use the term natural to apply to the natural physical world, but this word can be applied to God also, since God is a nature of being. In comparison to the physical order, God is supernatural
There is no place for the supernatural.
Assumptions are not arguments. Is this not just your belief? Your not very charitable in giving logical justification for your naturalistic beliefs.
 
Imitation is the highest form of flattery…
Not in this case. I use imitation to demonstrate that gratuitous assertions are worthless and can be used by either side. Irony is often the most effective response to the repetition of mantras which serve no useful purpose. It is a waste of time stating something everyone already knows you believe. It gives the impression you are trying to convince yourself. I have lost count of the number of times you have used the expression “god of the gaps”. I shall have to respond with “science of the gaps”. 🙂
And where did your “everything” come from?
And where did your “everything” come from? Purposeless quanta of physical energy?
On the other hand, science has a pretty decent track record.
Philosophy, religion, spirituality and intuition have a far better track record for explaining the most important things in life. Science is restricted to the mechanistic aspect of reality.
The “gaps” for your god are constantly shrinking
.
The “gaps” for science are constantly shrinking. People are realizing how impotent it is when it comes to spiritual, moral, political and social issues.
Lightning is no longer believed to be the flaming sword of God, is it?
Science is no longer believed to be the panacea for all our problems, is it? It cannot produce reasons for living or loving …
Diseases are not caused by demons, are they?
Psychological disorders are not always caused by physical disorders, are they? Psychiatry and medicine are now concerned with the whole person not solely with parts of the body…
Natural is everything that exists in reality.
Supernatural is everything that exists in reality. (An equally gratuitous assertion.)
There is no place for the supernatural.
There is no place for the natural. (An equally gratuitous assertion.)
The goalposts of science are constantly changing, that is for sure, and they are expanding - just like the realm for the supernatural is constantly shrinking.
The goalposts of holism are constantly changing, that is for sure, and they are expanding - just like the realm for the natural is constantly shrinking.
Science gains acceptance at the cost of the unscientific, superstitious, unnatural ideas, which are getting outdated, more and more so - every day.
Holism gains acceptance at the cost of scientific, mechanistic, materialistic, atomistic ideas, which are getting outdated, more and more so - every day.

What precise reasons are there for believing everything has a physical origin? (No response)
Does truth have a physical origin?
We speak of “truth” is when our understanding of reality corresponds to reality, or when something is the logical corollary of some axioms.
Is correspondence a tangible, physical reality? Can it be observed by the senses?
Did similarity between objects exist before human beings knew it existed? Where is it located?
If the mind is produced by the brain - which functions according to physical laws - free will must be an illusion.
Possibly, but not necessarily. Not all physical laws are deterministic.
Indeterminism does not explain free will. Free will presupposes the power of reason. How do random events produce the power of reason? How can there be self-control without a self?
(No response)
An increase in complexity does not explain consciousness.
How would you know that?
*Because there is no explanation of the mechanism by which organisms become conscious or acquire free will. It is equivalent to believing inanimate objects become aware of themselves and able to control themselves. It is an unsubstantiated hypothesis based on the gratuitous assumption that everything has a physical origin. *
(No response)
An algorithm is simply a set of instructions. They remain algorithms no matter how much they change.
Obviously you never heard of heuristic algorithms.
Heuristic algorithms presuppose an intelligent agent.
(No response)
In other words there is no scientific explanation.
No full one, yet. But the evidence supports the working hypothesis.
*No matter how **improbable ***the working hypothesis may be you cling to it because it supports, and is supported by, the gratuitous assumption that everything has a physical origin.
(No response)

Last but not least, how did purposeful activity emerge from purposeless activity?
 
Did you know that there are things that are in principle outside the explanatory power of science? Science will never answer them. This idea that science is shrinking all the gaps in our knowledge and is powerful enough to answer all the questions rightfully asked by philosophy, is a popular myth.
The “questions” of philosophy are nothing, but fun mind games. They are not relevant to our existence. Very probably (but not certainly) science cannot answer a question like “why do we love certain music and dislike others”? Or why some people like blonds and other like brunettes? Or why some people like sushi, and others hate it? Such questions might be interesting, but fruitless. When one has spare time, it may be interesting to ponder them. Philosophy has always been the game of well-fed people, those who don’t have to worry, where their next meal will come from.
If you want to explain physics, then you must posit a transcendent immaterial being that created physics along with all its laws.
I don’t have to do that. Physics and its laws simply exist. If I would tell you that you must posit a super-god, if you want to explain your God, you would reject it, and say that your God simply exists, and needs no explanation.

We all start somewhere, with some basic assumptions. I start with nature, and I don’t seek “purpose”, “cause”, or anything like that for it. You make one more step beyond that and posit God as the source for nature. You reject that God needs a “cause”. Don’t you see that our positions are identical in their structure? Our basic assumptions are what they are, and neither of us looks any further for explanation. The difference is, that my view allows us to investigate the “how”, allows us to discover how nature works. Yours does not allow that, you cannot even wish to find out “how” God operates. It is fruitless.
Yes; but all of that which is natural isn’t necessarily physical or inert. We usually use the term natural to apply to the natural physical world, but this word can be applied to God also, since God is a nature of being. In comparison to the physical order, God is supernatural
If God is supernatural, then he is not natural. The distinction between natural and supernatural is important. By the way, I would prefer to use the term “unnatural”, since “super”-natural would require the use of “sub”-natural, as well.
Assumptions are not arguments. Is this not just your belief? Your not very charitable in giving logical justification for your naturalistic beliefs.
I answered this above. We start from a set of basic assuptions, which cannot be justified. That is why they are basic.
 
That is your problem.

There is an objective Brownian motion of the molecules. The sensory organs in our skin interpret this as temperature. We arbitrarily divide this temperature into categories, and we call them “warm”, “cold”, “hot”, freezing", “scorching”, etc…

And so on… I heard before that concepts “exist” as “abstract objects”, and we merely "discover them. Total and complete nonsense - and useless at that.
There is an objective Brownian motion of the molecules. The sensory organs in our skin interpret this as temperature. We arbitrarily divide this temperature into categories, and we call them “warm”, “cold”, “hot”, freezing", “scorching”, etc.
I perhaps I didn’t make myself clear. I accept this – but not your mechanistic interpretation of it. The molecules themselves are substances made up of matter and form. They move and their kinetic energy undergoes a substantial change into thermal energy. (When the energy is transferred.) There still is an idea of cold though, and this is a deficiency of heat. This idea is immaterial. How we get the knowledge of this idea is a different story.
And so on… I heard before that concepts “exist” as “abstract objects”, and we merely "discover them. Total and complete nonsense - and useless at that.
You are going to have to back that up with logic Spock. Lets hear your arguments if it is that nonsensical.
 
I perhaps I didn’t make myself clear. I accept this – but not your mechanistic interpretation of it. The molecules themselves are substances made up of matter and form. They move and their kinetic energy undergoes a substantial change into thermal energy. (When the energy is transferred.) There still is an idea of cold though, and this is a deficiency of heat. This idea is immaterial. How we get the knowledge of this idea is a different story.
The idea of “cold” in everyday language describes the subjective feeling of someone. With your usage, there is only one “cold”, the absolute zero (Kelvin), where the Brownian motion of molecules stop - theoretically. It cannot be actually reached, but you can get close to it. One could also talk about “wetness”, and “dryness”, where “dry” describes the lack of viscosity. But there is no such thing. Viscosity has degrees. One can speak of dark, as the lack of light. If there are no photons around, it can be called “darkness”. But what is the point? When there are too few photons around for our eyes to register them, we call it darkness. But the same number of photons is adequate for owls. It is all subjective, based upon the sensory organs we have.
You are going to have to back that up with logic Spock. Lets hear your arguments if it is that nonsensical.
Ok. At least one poster (name irrlevant, though I remember it) asserted that there are “things” he called: “abstact objects”, and he brought up a few examples: numbers, letters (specifically the letter “z”), sounds, like the middle “C”, combinations of letters, like the “Hamlet”, colors, compositions of colors (the Mona Lisa). He said that these “objects” exist independently from us. They are not created by us, we merely discover them. I asked about the nature of this “existence”, and never received a meaningful answer.

Now, based upon this idea, he said that Beethoven never created the Ninth Symphony, he merely “discovered” it. Shakespeare never created the Hamlet, he just “discovered” it. I leave it to you to form your own opinion, if this proposition makes any sense to you. I find it totally without merit.
 
The “questions” of philosophy are nothing, but fun mind games. … Philosophy has always been the game of well-fed people, those who don’t have to worry, where their next meal will come from.
I hate to point this out, but science is part of philosophy. Natural science asks “how” and metaphysics asks “why”, but both imply a low enough level of anxiety with regard to survival that there is time for questions. This is one of the reasons I reject “entropy” - if life were the product of purely physical events in a closed system (no creation ex nihilo) then the probability of it developing ever anywhere and especially in such a way as we experience it is ~0. Why do I mention this? Because “science” as we know it was developed and formalized by philosophers, not by animals scrounging for survival. Don’t be so critical of philosophy for by extension you criticize science even more harshly.
…Physics and its laws simply exist …your God simply exists, and needs no explanation… We all start somewhere, with some basic assumptions. I start with nature, and I don’t seek “purpose”, “cause”, or anything like that for it. You make one more step beyond that and posit God as the source for nature… The difference is, that my view allows us to investigate the “how”, allows us to discover how nature works. Yours does not allow that, you cannot even wish to find out “how” God operates.
Someone probably already laughed at this statement. Asking “how” is “seeking a ‘purpose’, ‘cause’…” So you are right about similar structure of our positions, but contradictory in your conclusion. It seems to me that those expecting to find a source to nature actually step further along the path of asking “how” and “why” with regard to nature - theists cannot give up and say “that’s just how it is” (materialist). A theist who says “that’s just how God made it, I don’t know why” is admitting ignorance; a materialist who says “that’s simply the way it is” is stating a point of dogma. This is why I contend that all honest scientists must be either theist or agnostic. The atheist is always backing up when scientific discoveries are made: “That’s just the way it is, there is no ‘why’.” - “Actually, we’ve discovered a relationship…” - “Oh? Well then that is just the way it is, there is no ‘why’.” - “Um, well, it looks like there was this cause behind that relationship…” - “Oh? Well then that is just… dammit, there is no god!!!” - “Um, how does that follow?”
If God is supernatural, then he is not natural.
You are confused with regard to the meaning of “supernatural” - nature supercedent of current understanding…
 
I hate to point this out, but science is part of philosophy. Natural science asks “how” and metaphysics asks “why”, but both imply a low enough level of anxiety with regard to survival that there is time for questions.
I would say it differently: natural sciences, abstract sciences and philosophy are all parts of human endeavors. (Some people might say that philosophy is part of the abstract sciences, it is a matter of taste.) In a temporal setting, philosophy was probably the first, it included the natural sciences, due to the lack of knowledge, “how” things work. The abstract sciences came later, and they are also pure mind games. (I don’t really consider this a pejorative assessment, after all I was a mathematician.)

Yes, in a sense the natural sciences also ask a “why”, but in a different manner than philosophy does. Unfortuantely we are confronted with a lack of phrases, we pnly have one word: “why”? Some usual questions of philosophy are “why are we are here?”, or "what is the purpose of our existence?, “what came first, the hen or the egg?”, which is the same as “what came first, matter, or spirit”? These are irrelevant questions and they cannot be answered. These are the “problems” of metaphysics: “what exists”?

There are other aspects of philosophy, which are important to the natural sciences as well. These pertain to epistemology: “how do we gain knowledge”? What are the proper methods of obtaining information?

Finally, one arrives at ethics, which can be summed up as: “so what should we do now?”.

Natural sciences do not deal with these questions. They are only interested in pragmatic problems. “How does electricity work?” is a valid scientific question. On the other hand the question: “why is it that on the innermost electron path there can be only 2 electrons?” is not relevant. We observe that this is how it is, and do not seek a higher level of “why”? And most importantly, we never ask (in science) “who arranged that only 2 electrons can reside on the innermost electron path?”.

I say that there some things which we both accept as basic, which cannot be answered because they are basic. They are assumptions. They simply are what they are.
You are confused with regard to the meaning of “supernatural” - nature supercedent of current understanding…
I don’t think so. Supernatural is something totally and completely beyond the physical (read natural) existence, and it is forever closed to us.
 
I would say it differently: natural sciences, abstract sciences and philosophy are all parts of human endeavors… In a temporal setting, philosophy was probably the first, it included the natural sciences, due to the lack of knowledge “how” things work…
…natural sciences also ask a “why”, but in a different manner than philosophy… Unfortunately we are confronted with a lack of phrases, we only have one word: “why”? Some usual questions of philosophy are “why are we are here?”, or "what is the purpose of our existence?, “what came first, the hen or the egg?”…These are irrelevant questions and they cannot be answered…
…epistemology: “how do we gain knowledge”? What are the proper methods of obtaining information?
…Natural sciences do not deal with these questions. They are only interested in pragmatic problems. “How does electricity work?” is a valid scientific question. On the other hand the question: “why is it that on the innermost electron path there can be only 2 electrons?” is not relevant. We observe that this is how it is, and do not seek a higher level of “why”? And most importantly, we never ask (in science) “who arranged that only 2 electrons can reside on the innermost electron path?”.
I say that there some things which we both accept as basic, which cannot be answered because they are basic. They are assumptions. They simply are what they are.
It’s good that you were a mathematician because you would have made a lousy scientist, conceptually.
Philosophy did not just proceed natural science temporally but precedes it necessarily at all times. I am a researcher in the field of biology. As a researcher, the first questions which I must ask myself are always metaphysical or philosophical. I observe a supposed reality (natural phenomenon), think about how to interpret what I have observed, generate a hypothesis relating the observation to others I have made, then use whatever tools I have available that are applicable to test that hypothesis. Of course, I first must ascertain whether the tools I have are up to the task, and for that I (or hopefully someone before me) must also generate and test a hypothesis, and so on. The assumptions we make when dealing with the physical world are metaphysical. In this way metaphysics and philosophy necessarily precedes natural science.
When a philosopher asks “which came first, hen or egg?”, the natural scientist asks, “how is each caused?” The philosopher retorts, “Do all things in reality have a cause?”, and the scientist realizes he cannot prove this is so but must assume it.
Assumption #1: all material things (nature) have a cause.
The philosopher may drag this question back so that science investigates the origins of the universe and discovers evidence to support a theory, the Big Bang, while also discovering evidence to discount a literal interpretation of Genesis. What caused the Big Bang? Science has yet to discover this, but it is not assumed, it is an open question…
Now the philosopher asks, “How do you know your methods of scientific deduction are useful? How do you know what tools are appropriate for determining how hens and eggs are caused or how old the universe is?” Epistomology - of the utmost importance to science. Note, this is not the question of “How do I know this isn’t all just an illusion?” but rather “How do I know I am collecting relevant information and interpreting it correctly with regard to my experiment?”
Science contributes to ethics by means of observing “natural laws”. Suicide, by all observations, is a behavior limited to humanity; altruism is not. Art, math, language, civilization are all phenomena associated exclusively with humanity, family-structure and the passing on of knowledge is not. These observations can tell us about ourselves and inform, though certainly not fully establish, codes of ethics.
Finally, asking “why is it that on the innermost electron path there can be only 2 electrons?” is the domain of philosophy but of the utmost relevance to science because questions like this are what drive scientific discovery! It’s like asking “Why don’t oil and water dissolve into one another?” It isn’t “just that way” - we do NOT assume it as a basic property and unanswerable question. The scientific question becomes “How do oil and water resist dissolution?” and “How does the presence of 2 electrons on the innermost path prevent the addition of more? Can there be less?” We then use our intellect to develop tools to test hypotheses that teach us more about the properties of “atoms”, but we don’t stop there! We develop tools to investigate sub-atomic particles and the spaces between! Why does light show behavior related both to particles and waves? The scientific question: “How does it show each behavior? Can we alter this behavior?”
Natural science and philosophy are intrinsically intertwined. The “basic assumptions” of science are all philosophical, namely “All material things have a cause”; and the “laws” of thermodynamics are really only scientific theories based on philosophical assumptions. But the essence of science is to never stop at a basic assumption, to never assume that a question cannot be answered. What if humans evolved from another species? What if all life evolved from a single organism? - metaphysical questions with scientific relevance. What if some entity did create the universe? (metaphysical question) “Who” might be beyond the field due to lack of the appropriate tools for discovery, but it is not irrelevant to science, for discovering “who” might help us discover “how” if we know something about the “who”.
To summarize, scientists only assume a thing to be true for practical purposes when attempting to discover something else, but that basic assumption should never be dogmatic - “that’s just how it is” has no place in science unless accompanied by “we don’t know why”. In science we ask “Why is this the case? How do we go about investigating it? Is what we have learned relevant? Now what?”
I don’t think so. Supernatural is something totally and completely beyond the physical (read natural) existence, and it is forever closed to us.
Look up “supernatural”. Your definition is too restrictive for it implies full knowledge of what is “natural”, which is silly. If the “supernatural” were forever closed to us, we would have no experience of it for that would be impossible, yet we use the term to describe observed phenomena and experiences beyond normal natural description - miracles, spirits, that for which we have to physical explanation. The natural and the “super”-natural interact. shrug
 
Look up “supernatural”. Your definition is too restrictive for it implies full knowledge of what is “natural”, which is silly.
It does not imply anything like that. Without having full knowledge one can only say - with intellectual honesty - that one may have experienced something that has no natural explanation, as of yet.
If the “supernatural” were forever closed to us, we would have no experience of it for that would be impossible, yet we use the term to describe observed phenomena and experiences beyond normal natural description - miracles, spirits, that for which we have to physical explanation.
Which teminology is just “sloppy”. These phenomena are not supernatural. They are unexplained natural incidents, or - more likely - simply imagined. There are no “real” miracles, at most there are events which have not been explained. Sometimes it happens that one or a few people survive a plane crash. Their relatives are happy to declare a “miracle”. The relatives of the perished ones probably disagree.
 
I’m not entirely sure what idealism is, but I skimmed an article on it, and it sounds like it might be self-defeating.

Could someone briefly describe the position of idealism? It would be very much appreciated.
 
It does not imply anything like that. Without having full knowledge one can only say - with intellectual honesty - that one may have experienced something that has no natural explanation, as of yet.
I agree. Without full knowledge of the “natural” how can one be absolutely certain that his experience does not have a “natural” explanation? I guess the “experiencer” is making an assumption based on previous experience - no one has come up with a “natural” explanation yet, so he doesn’t expect that one will ever be discovered.
Which terminology is just “sloppy”. These phenomena are not supernatural. They are unexplained natural incidents, or - more likely - simply imagined. There are no “real” miracles, at most there are events which have not been explained…
I agree, the terminology is sloppy, but through intellectual honesty I (and you too) should hesitate to declare categorically that there are no “real” miracles. Everyone, including the loved-ones of those who died in a plane crash, would declare the survival of others a “miracle” due to the sheer improbability of such an outcome. Only a hard atheist would deny this, and him only because it is part of his dogma rather than by logical argument.
But the highly-improbable is only one sort of “miracle” or “supernatural” event. Another is potentially unexplainable phenomena, like the miracles of Fatima, Lanciano, Lourdes, … you can look these up, along with conspiracy theories and long essays by annoyed people whose belief-systems such events undermine. (Btw, there may be such well researched “miracles” among other faiths as well, I’m not trying to be biased) Most intellectuals will maintain a level of skepticism with regard to all things they have not personally experienced, and even with regard to things they have; but none can honestly and un-dogmatically deny the existence of unexplained and potentially unexplainable phenomena. No honest intellectual can be an atheist-materialist, and any atheist who claims to be an honest intellectual should be treated with the utmost skepticism. It saddens me that others who hold to the field of science often do not demonstrate such intellectual honesty. 😊
(P.S. Sorry i didn’t reply to the “free will” thread yet, it was a busy day yesterday)
 
I’m not entirely sure what idealism is, but I skimmed an article on it, and it sounds like it might be self-defeating.
Could someone briefly describe the position of idealism? It would be very much appreciated.
This was mentioned back on page 1 or 2…(taken from dictionary.com)
Idealism: any system or theory that maintains that the real is of the nature of thought or that the object of external perception consists of ideas.
(To summarize, reality is entirely subjective - i.e. Truth is only in the subject’s mind)
Realism: the doctrine that objects of sense perception have an existence independent of the act of perception.
(To summarize, reality is objective - i.e. Truth is in the object, regardless of what the subject perceives)
 
I’m not entirely sure what idealism is, but I skimmed an article on it, and it sounds like it might be self-defeating.
Could someone briefly describe the position of idealism? It would be very much appreciated.
…and because I cannot restrain myself:
If a tree falls in the forest but no one is around to perceive it, does it make a sound?

Realist: “Yes.”
Idealist: (significant look) “There is no spoon.”
:cool:
 
Ah, thanks!

In which case, idealism - when universalized - seems to be self-defeating, and when it isn’t universalized, it is probably special pleading (arbitrarily choosing what is mind-perceived-truth and what is universal).
 
I agree. Without full knowledge of the “natural” how can one be absolutely certain that his experience does not have a “natural” explanation? I guess the “experiencer” is making an assumption based on previous experience - no one has come up with a “natural” explanation yet, so he doesn’t expect that one will ever be discovered.
Good summary.
I agree, the terminology is sloppy, but through intellectual honesty I (and you too) should hesitate to declare categorically that there are no “real” miracles.
It depends on the definition of “miracle”, which is very loosely used. If a miracle is defined as something that cannot happen in nature with natural causes, then a miracle is at least “partially impossible”, since everything happens in nature. As for its causes, one may assume a supernatural cause, but then the onus is on him to substantiate that claim. Of course the “claimant” may simply say: “this is what I believe”, and then there is nothing further to talk about. Everyone is entitled to hold any belief.
But the highly-improbable is only one sort of “miracle” or “supernatural” event. Another is potentially unexplainable phenomena, like the miracles of Fatima, Lanciano, Lourdes, … you can look these up…
I did. There is nothing that would point to some supernatural event. Of course that does not “prove” the nonexistence of such causes.

A parallel example would be the claims of “paranormal”. People attribute all sorts of events to “paranormal” powers. Uri Geller habitually performs sleight of hand “miracles”. He asserts that he does not “know” how he does them. Of course these are all readily explained by the fact that he is a very skilled sleight of hand magician, and his “claim” is just an attention gathering trick. Again, this does not prove the lack of such powers. Generally the “absence” of something cannot be proven, especially if that “someting” is so loosely defined. And that is the case with “miracles” and the “paranormal”. They are too vague to be disproven.

I will add something that might draw a lot of “fire”. To investigate such claims doctors, sicentists, clergymen are all unqualified. There is only one class of people, who are qualified to investigate such claims, and they are the ones who are never (or almost never) invited. Of course I talk about the professionals of misdirection, the stage magicians. Their whole profession is based upon attempting to perform “miracles”. They are best qualified to detect the holes in the events.
 
…and because I cannot restrain myself:
If a tree falls in the forest but no one is around to perceive it, does it make a sound?

Realist: “Yes.”
Idealist: (significant look) “There is no spoon.”
:cool:
I love it! 👍
 
It depends on the definition of “miracle”, which is very loosely used. If a miracle is defined as something that cannot happen in nature with natural causes, then a miracle is at least “partially impossible”, since everything happens in nature. As for its causes, one may assume a supernatural cause, but then the onus is on him to substantiate that claim. Of course the “claimant” may simply say: “this is what I believe”, and then there is nothing further to talk about…
I will add something that might draw a lot of “fire”… professionals of misdirection, the stage magicians. Their whole profession is based upon attempting to perform “miracles”. They are best qualified to detect the holes in the events.
It certainly does establish an impass when a claimant states “supernatural event!” and another states “natural but as-yet unexplained event!” since neither can “prove” their case…
As a scientist, I professionally:p question how “qualified” magicians may be for debunking the “supernatural”, but I am only begging the question of whether they themselves understand the mechanisms behind their “tricks” or if there is yet another wizard behind the curtain (so to speak). Perhaps a magician would be better qualified to reveal how natural mechanisms could be employed to achieve “supernatural” results :onpatrol: But it reminds me of the story in Exodus where Moses performs miracles which the Pharaoh’s magicians imitate…
In any case, we have thoroughly derailed the thread onto the topic of miracles.:doh2:
Back to Realism vs Idealism
 
…I think this was the last topic-relevant post…
The idea of “cold” in everyday language describes the subjective feeling of someone… One could also talk about “wetness”, and “dryness”, where “dry” describes the lack of viscosity… One can speak of dark, as the lack of light… It is all subjective, based upon the sensory organs we have…
I agree with you, if an Idealist points to an “idea of” some physical experience, he is speaking comparatively - wetter or dryer, colder or warmer, etc. - and the Realist can point to some established objective standard of measurement. The establishment of an “objective standard” lends force to the Realist’s argument, for subjective experiences are similar enough that we can judge (to some degree) when a measuring-tool is “way-off” - i.e. when an objective measurement disagrees strongly with a subjective idea, one of the two may require “recalibration”, and we usually check the tool first:)
…At least one poster…asserted that there are “things”…“abstact objects”… numbers, letters, sounds like the middle “C”, combinations of letters like the “Hamlet”, colors, compositions of colors (the Mona Lisa). He said that these “objects” exist independently from us. They are not created by us, we merely discover them. I asked about the nature of this “existence”, and never received a meaningful answer…
…Now, based upon this idea, he said that Beethoven never created the Ninth Symphony, he merely “discovered” it. Shakespeare never created the Hamlet, he just “discovered” it. I leave it to you to form your own opinion, if this proposition makes any sense to you. I find it totally without merit.
Well, the “discovery” of particular sounds, colors, and even a number (or rather ratio) I have no problem with, for those have objective reality in the natural world. “Middle C” is just a term for sound vibrations at a particular frequency, currently calculated at approximately 261.626 Hz. The science of music is quite fascinating… as is that involving math/numbers in nature (I’m sure you’re more familiar with this than I), like “PI” as the ratio discovered between circumference & diameter. Natural numbers can refer to quantities of objects or a scale value in measuring weight, height, etc. Negative numbers can be inferred from positive numbers for the purposes of mathematics… much of what we “discover” about math may be simply corollaries of previously established axioms - such “abstract” discoveries are related to less abstract, previously established concepts.
I totally disagree with the notion that symphonies or works of literature are “discovered” rather than composed, though perhaps the poster meant they are “discovered” in the sense that someone conceives of them and afterward “discovers” how truly beautiful (or ugly) they are. I “discovered” I am not a very good author 😉
But the “existence” of abstract concepts like “Beauty” should give realists pause - what is it about a compilation of sounds, colors, numbers, qualities, etc. that evokes such appreciation, disgust, emotion, etc. in the human spirit? Is the pondering of this mystery appropriate subject-matter for this topic?
 
…I think this was the last topic-relevant post…

I agree with you, if an Idealist points to an “idea of” some physical experience, he is speaking comparatively - wetter or dryer, colder or warmer, etc. - and the Realist can point to some established objective standard of measurement. The establishment of an “objective standard” lends force to the Realist’s argument, for subjective experiences are similar enough that we can judge (to some degree) when a measuring-tool is “way-off” - i.e. when an objective measurement disagrees strongly with a subjective idea, one of the two may require “recalibration”, and we usually check the tool first:)
Excellent. So we can agree that stating: “cold is the lack of heat” is just a sloppy way of speaking.
Well, the “discovery” of particular sounds, colors, and even a number (or rather ratio) I have no problem with, for those have objective reality in the natural world. “Middle C” is just a term for sound vibrations at a particular frequency, currently calculated at approximately 261.626 Hz. The science of music is quite fascinating… as is that involving math/numbers in nature (I’m sure you’re more familiar with this than I), like “PI” as the ratio discovered between circumference & diameter. Natural numbers can refer to quantities of objects or a scale value in measuring weight, height, etc. Negative numbers can be inferred from positive numbers for the purposes of mathematics… much of what we “discover” about math may be simply corollaries of previously established axioms - such “abstract” discoveries are related to less abstract, previously established concepts.
True. The existence of objective relationships and attributes leads to the formalization of concepts. The fact that “two apples” are more than “one apple” leads to the possibility of abstracting the concept of “one” and two". But the concepts themselves have no objective existence. There is no “two” somewhere out there which we discover. But, I certainly agree that the formalization of this concept directly leads to mathematics, and we justly say that one discovers mathematics, rather than creates it. Repeating: the concept of “one” and “two” are created, but the corollaries are discovered.
I totally disagree with the notion that symphonies or works of literature are “discovered” rather than composed, though perhaps the poster meant they are “discovered” in the sense that someone conceives of them and afterward “discovers” how truly beautiful (or ugly) they are. I “discovered” I am not a very good author 😉
Right on! The funny thing is that these entities are complex objects, and if one accepts the objective existence of their constituent parts, then they might argue that the complex objects also have objective existence.
But the “existence” of abstract concepts like “Beauty” should give realists pause - what is it about a compilation of sounds, colors, numbers, qualities, etc. that evokes such appreciation, disgust, emotion, etc. in the human spirit? Is the pondering of this mystery appropriate subject-matter for this topic?
Except the realist denies the objective existence of “beauty”.

We find something beautiful because it is in harmony with some of our inner mind-states. The golden ratio (square root of five minus 1 divided by two - approximately 0.618) is “beautiful”, because we see it all around us. Some people find a certain music beautiful, because music resonates with mind-states. Music is not about sounds, it is how our mind relates to the sounds. Not everyone will find Wagner’s music beautiful. (I cannot resist quoting the old saying: “Wagner’s music is actually much better than it sounds”. :))

Beauty is just another concept we apply to certain things. There is no objective “justice”, “beauty”, “love”, etc… these concepts refer to objective “things” and to our relationship with them. As Click and Clack (I hope you know what I am talking about) said: “if there is a man in the forest, and says something, and there is no woman around… is he still wrong”?

And I also agree that pondering just “why” do we find something beautiful is a legitimate question.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top