Except that the blind idea of reality is as much idiotic as the belief in a God.
-
-
Replying to @NegarestaniReza @Baalren and
you really (haha) think there's no reality at all?
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @cyborg_nomade @Baalren and
Don't be naive. The concept of reality requires adequate qualifications. Reality is never given on a silver plate. Reality is found and constructed by the labor of objectivity.
2 replies 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @NegarestaniReza @Baalren and
again, you seem to be subordinating reality to theory. is this a move to say that, with the right theory, anything is possible? I'm really trying to fathom what you think, because it doesn't seem to make any sense.
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @cyborg_nomade @Baalren and
No you seem to misunderstand the nature of scientific theories. Scientific theories never say anything is possible. They rather re-construct what see as the apparition of reality by impersonal means.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @NegarestaniReza @Baalren and
sure, but if reality makes an apparition, it's not at all just a theoretical construct.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @cyborg_nomade @NegarestaniReza and
question being, do you actually think that there's nothing outside of perception and its expression in language-based processes?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @cyborg_nomade @Baalren and
No. But that's the predicament of objectivity. You can't assume there is this or that. Language as a web of inferences gives us an apparition of a phenomenal reality. Yet only scientific theories by virtue of their construction can dig holes in the phenomenal realm.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @NegarestaniReza @Baalren and
ok, it's a little more clear now. another question, don't you think that competition amongst social institutions play an important role in the development of scientific theories and, more to the point, in their accuracy in describing reality?
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @cyborg_nomade @Baalren and
Sure they do but they are not prime factors. We can ontologize them. The story of rival scientific theories is far more messy. Think of this for example:
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
Sorry I meant we CANOT ontologist them.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.