Philosophy Thread~ Objective Reality

[Kaninchen]

In other words an ‘objective reality’ protected against any kind of necessity of a relationship with something observable (“objective realities can be logically demonstrated that are not material in nature”).

How are we to demarcate between “God for example” and the “invisible pink unicorn”? How are we to demarcate between the “invisible pink unicorn directed universe theory” and, say, General Relativity?

 

[cpayne]

In other words an ‘objective reality’ protected against any kind of necessity of a relationship with something observable (“objective realities can be logically demonstrated that are not material in nature”).

How are we to demarcate between “God for example” and the “invisible pink unicorn”? How are we to demarcate between the “invisible pink unicorn directed universe theory” and, say, General Relativity?

No, logical demonstrations are not “protected” as such; as I said, empirical observation comes first. However, if you want to then say that logical demonstrations based on that empirical observation have to be ruled out of bounds a priori, you would have to be able to justify your materialistic presuppositions (ironically, you’d have to justify them logically, not empirically ).

General Relativity can be corroborated by empirical observations and measurements (the bend of light around planets by gravitational attraction, for instance, can be measured). A maximally perfect being such as God could be logically demonstrated (ontological argument) or inferred based on observations (cosmological argument). Can’t do either one of those things with a unicorn.

 

[Kaninchen]

No, logical demonstrations are not “protected” as such; as I said, empirical observation comes first.

Shudder. How do I ‘know’ what I’m ‘observing’?

However, if you want to then say that logical demonstrations based on that empirical observation have to be ruled out of bounds a priori, you would have to be able to justify your materialistic presuppositions (ironically, you’d have to justify them logically, not empirically ).

Actually, I don’t have to do anything of the sort since I’m not searching here for ‘meaning’ or ‘truth’ (I can find those by other means), I’m looking for a method by which non-physical propositions can be linked to the physical in a way that is not purely rhetorico-logical. Not only that, I do want to be able to discern the difference between the ‘observed’ as a product of the actions of ‘God’ or the ‘Invisible Pink Unicorn’ and I’d really like you to help me out by explaining in your schema, just how that would be achieved.

General Relativity can be corroborated by empirical observations and measurements (the bend of light around planets by gravitational attraction, for instance, can be measured). A maximally perfect being such as God could be logically demonstrated (ontological argument) or inferred based on observations (cosmological argument). Can’t do either one of those things with a unicorn.

Oh, the ‘Invisible Pink Unicorn’ would be a perfectly adequate candidate for the latter - the universe exists because invisiblepinkunicorndidit, didn’t you know?

 

[cpayne]

Shudder. How do I ‘know’ what I’m ‘observing’?

Actually, I don’t have to do anything of the sort since I’m not searching here for ‘meaning’ or ‘truth’ (I can find those by other means), I’m looking for a method by which non-physical propositions can be linked to the physical in a way that is not purely rhetorico-logical. Not only that, I do want to be able to discern the difference between the ‘observed’ as a product of the actions of ‘God’ or the ‘Invisible Pink Unicorn’ and I’d really like you to help me out by explaining in your schema, just how that would be achieved.

Oh, the ‘Invisible Pink Unicorn’ would be a perfectly adequate candidate for the latter - the universe exists because invisiblepinkunicorndidit, didn’t you know?

First of all, as stated earlier, you know what you are observing because sense observations have the same status as principles of knowledge.

I’m not sure what you mean by the dismissive phrase “rhetorico-logical.” Logic IS how empirical observations are linked to observations of the non-physical (non-physical meaning intelligible and observable, but not physically observable). You do not accept the authority of logical inference rules as being valid? If not, why are we even having a discussion? If you don’t accept the objective validity of logical inferences, why bother?

An invisible pink unicorn would still have some sort of extension at least in time and probably space (otherwise how would you know it is a unicorn?). As such, it would be a part of creation and could not qualify as a Creator. Anselm explains this in his Reply to Gaunilo, if any (serious) inquirers want to read it.

 

[utunumsint]

Nice explanation cpayne.

General Relativity can be corroborated by empirical observations and measurements (the bend of light around planets by gravitational attraction, for instance, can be measured). A maximally perfect being such as God could be logically demonstrated (ontological argument) or inferred based on observations (cosmological argument). Can’t do either one of those things with a unicorn.

Another example is dark matter. We know there is a large amount of unaccountable gravitational force pushing the universe apart, but we have no idea what the source is. We infer that there must be something doing this, and call it dark matter. But no one has ever observed it, measured it, smelled it, tasted it, etc… And yet it makes up 70 % of our universe.

If scientists can make valid inferences based on empirical evidence for the existence of something that makes up 70 % of our universe, why are inferences for the existence of God not allowed?

Ut

 

[Kaninchen]

First of all, as stated earlier, you know what you are observing because sense observations have the same status as principles of knowledge.

Not what I meant at all. In order to observe something one needs to be looking for something – there’s an organizing principle – a conjecture – at work, it’s not a tabula rasa situation where inspired inference from a mass of unorganised data reveals all.

I’m not sure what you mean by the dismissive phrase “rhetorico-logical.” Logic IS how empirical observations are linked to observations of the non-physical (non-physical meaning intelligible and observable, but not physically observable). You do not accept the authority of logical inference rules as being valid? If not, why are we even having a discussion? If you don’t accept the objective validity of logical inferences, why bother?

What we disagree about fundamentally (well one thing from what, by deduction from your responses, has emerged as potentially very long list of fundamentals we disagree about) is whether the term ‘objective’ can be used about things that cannot be tested/tested-in-principle.

I would agree that people from such antithetical epistemological perspectives don’t really have much to talk about on a general message board.

 

[cpayne]

What we disagree about fundamentally (well one thing from what, by deduction from your responses, has emerged as potentially very long list of fundamentals we disagree about) is whether the term ‘objective’ can be used about things that cannot be tested/tested-in-principle.

Okay, I see what you mean now. However, I would still argue that logical validity is a test for “objectivity,” at least for those things not susceptible to direct empirical observation.