nothing in science can ground your percetions in reality because you still percieve science with your perceptions. If your perceptions are illusions then science is an illusion.
52 comments
And if your perceptions are an illusion, your bible is also an illusion. Hell, maybe this thing we call life is one big dream of a sleeping giant and we have no control over what we think and do...Idiot.
You are assuming that our perceptions are in fact illusions, a position held by very few apart from Christian Scientists, solipsists, and really extreme Matrix fans. That assumption is not warranted without proof.
We discussed all this in my Theory of Knowledge course: whether or not reality was an illusion and we could trust our senses. "What if we're just brains, floating in a jar with certain signals being sent to it?"
We decided two things:
1st that we have to trust our senses, because they're all we have. If we can't trust our senses, NOTHING (and that includes religion) is believable and there is no point attempting to do anything. Therefore, although we have no reason to trust our senses, we do.
2nd: Even if we don't trust our senses, science appears to be very accurately predictive. For example, if you throw a ball it follows a very well described path, and it takes the same path every time you throw it with that velocity. Therefore science is still valid and correct, even if its not real.
Good. I'll be ignoring you from now on, since you are, after all, just an illusion created by my perceptions.
Even if our perceptions are illusory, what else do we have? What else can we possibly do but respond to them as if they were real?
EDIT: Damn, Arkady, beaten to the punch, and more clearly delivered too!
Dude, like, have you ever looked at your hands? I mean, like, really looked at them? </stoner>
He's right for a certain common definition of reality. It's solipism, but it's technically correct. Its just useless. Science deals with what we perceive. If what we perceive is not "real" in some metaphysical sense, science sim ply does not describe that metaphysical sense.
Wrong.
perception
noun 1 the ability to see, hear, or become aware of something through the senses. 2 the process of perceiving. 3 a way of understanding or interpreting something. 4 intuitive understanding and insight.
I don't perceive with my perceptions, I perceive with my sensory organs and my comprehensive faculties, something which you apparantly lack. My perceptions are what I have perceived with them.
Even if perceptions are illusions, they still seem to follow rules, so science can still be used to understand those rules. Unless you can prove that reality is actually an illusion which doesn't follow rules, STFU.
Oh for the love of... not another Plato.
Plato, for the unaware, was a Greek philosopher and a student of Socrates. He believed that there were two realities, the imperfect reality we see and the perfect, real world. He used this as an arguement against heliocentricity and brought astronomy and the other sciences to a screeching halt for more than a thousand years.
Fortunately, science is far enough along that it can withstand a much less sophisticated arguement from Metacrock.
Plato?
Uh, guys, this is basic David Hume and/or John Stuart Mill, only arrived at accidentally by someone who's trying to be clever.
There is no absolute evidence our perceptions reflect reality. There is no absolute evidence that anything actually causes everything else.
However, we are entitled to assume that our perceptions reflect reality and to assume that effects have causes because there really isn't that much evidence to the contrary.
As long as we're willing to treat those two assumptions with the same open-mindedness we approach the rest of scientific inquiry with, we can use them as a foundation.
--GF
Science is not truth. It's a compendium of useful knowledge. Truth just happens to be a useful thing to know.
This really sounds like the philosophy of George Berkeley, except with the statement that 'science is an illusion' tacked on. Really, he is onto something, but it is something that we try to explain all the time to other fundies. It's the subtle difference between a law and a theory, and that science can only concern itself with theories, because it's based on only our admittedly fallible senses.
I thought at first, that the reason I couldn't understand this was because of all the grammatical errors. After correcting the errors, however, I discovered that it still didn't make a damn bit of sense. (I realize that he's using solpsism to try and deny science somehow, but I despise solipsism.)
Cogito, ergo sum. I perceive me as me, as the ruler of my life, therefore I am fairly certain I exist.
What were we talking about, again? Oh, just another helping of gobbledygook.
"your percetions"
My what?
@Scottish Dude
"btw, what's a perception?"
How everyone else on Planet Reality perceives Metacrock & all his pseudo-philosophising, 'watched a certain trio of Wachowski Bros films' ilk here. [/hyper-smartarse]
And fundies - especially in the US - wonder why theirs is no longer the Dominant Paradigm? Especially post-late 2012.
@Dr. Shrinker
"Ah, that magical word "if. " Where would the people who are afraid of science be without it?"
Leonidas & co. were afraid of nobody . Three words, fundies: Spartan Laconic Wit.
If your perceptions are illusions then science is an illusion
If science is illusory, then all products of such are equally illusions too.
And as the computer you're using - a product of science - to say that is an illusion, then you won't complain when I have that illusion for myself .
...oh, and can I have your conceptual money in your aethereal bank account?! [/Bitcoin]
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.