• filipeffv
    14
    Ah, but I existed before I joined this group, so your mind did not create me.Mitchell

    Clearly, you do not understand what he is saying, and never even take a book of transcendental epistemology to read... Ah!!!
    The Phenomena, not as it is in itself, but as it is to us, is a result of properties of second quality, id est, it is a process in which both the individual mind and the thing in it self (noumena) creates the Phenomena.
    "Phenomena are the appearances, which constitute the our experience; noumena are the things themselves, which constitute reality"
  • Mitchell
    134
    you do not understand what he is saying, and never even take a book of transcendental epistemology to read

    Does Husserl count? I have taken several graduate seminars just on Husserl and have used Cartesian Meditations in my own courses.

    But if he is arguing for a transcendental position, rather than for solipsism, then maybe I misunderstood him. But based on his response, I think not.
  • filipeffv
    14

    Oh, I understand. Sorry, I did wrong.
  • WISDOMfromPO-MO
    753
    I think that the point is being missed here.

    The materialism in the scientific method is just an axiom or something like that assumed for the purpose of investigating the physical world. It is not, as I understand it, the same as the materialism/physicalism of philosophical/intellectual movements that deny the existence of free will, say that consciousness is nothing more than neurological activity in the physical brain, etc.
  • tom
    1.3k
    The materialism in the scientific method is just an axiom or something like that assumed for the purpose of investigating the physical world. It is not, as I understand it, the same as the materialism/physicalism of philosophical/intellectual movements that deny the existence of free will, say that consciousness is nothing more than neurological activity in the physical brain, etc.WISDOMfromPO-MO

    I think that Realism underlies the scientific method. The idea that whatever is amenable to empirical testing is actually there and exists. Also that the solutions that science proposes to the problems it encounters are couched in terms of this reality.

    There is, of course, a risk of descending into circularity, but I think it safe to say that now (not so during the time of Newton) science has in fact honed in on the idea of the physical, and has adopted that metaphysics.
  • WISDOMfromPO-MO
    753
    I think that Realism underlies the scientific method. The idea that whatever is amenable to empirical testing is actually there and exists. Also that the solutions that science proposes to the problems it encounters are couched in terms of this reality.

    There is, of course, a risk of descending into circularity, but I think it safe to say that now (not so during the time of Newton) science has in fact honed in on the idea of the physical, and has adopted that metaphysics.
    tom

    But, as I understand it, that is not the same as the materialism/physicalism of a naturalist worldview. It is not the same thing from which determinism and similar ideas are derived. It's just a practical starting point for investigating the world, not a statement about existence, experience, reality vs. perception, etc.
  • tom
    1.3k
    But, as I understand it, that is not the same as the materialism/physicalism of a naturalist worldview. It is not the same thing from which determinism and similar ideas are derived. It's just a practical starting point for investigating the world, not a statement about existence, experience, reality vs. perception, etc.WISDOMfromPO-MO

    Sure, science can start from anywhere. Its method tends to lead, through a series of tentative decisions towards better explanations, though there are no guarantees.

    You cannot escape, however, the fact that our best theories are fully deterministic.
  • sime
    198
    You cannot escape, however, the fact that our best theories are fully deterministic.tom

    I don't think the notions of either determinism or randomness amounts to anything meaningful when describing 'nature in itself', because the 'necessary' truths of any physical theory are only the logical truths that defined as being true according to linguistic convention, with the convention being arbitrarily chosen and perpetually subject to revision.

    Consequently it is meaningless to distinguish necessary truths from contingent truths in any absolute sense.
  • tom
    1.3k
    I don't think the notions of either determinism or randomness amounts to anything meaningful when describing 'nature in itself', because the 'necessary' truths of any physical theory are only the logical truths that defined as being true according to linguistic convention, with the convention being arbitrarily chosen and perpetually subject to revision.sime

    Our best theories are deterministic. They work equally well forwards in time as backwards.
  • Deleted User
    0
    But, as I understand it, that is not the same as the materialism/physicalism of a naturalist worldview. It is not the same thing from which determinism and similar ideas are derived. It's just a practical starting point for investigating the world, not a statement about existence, experience, reality vs. perception, etc.WISDOMfromPO-MO

    Exactly, but it's not as much fun to criticise them if you make them sound all pragmatic and mundane, you have to make them sound like raging fundamentalists to really get the pleasure out of beating them up about it in philosophy forums.
123Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment