Are you saying its like an open question when evaluating phenomena as it what is fundemental reality. That each will have an epistemic basis which is premised on certain assumptions that are not themselves verifiable by science or logic or empiricle evidence.
Ok I will check it out and sounds interesting as I have researched this area. Kuhn is a pioneer on this with his ideas on paradigm shifts and how they come about. But I have read some good modern takes as well.
I found this paper informative as well
Naturalism and Science
metanexus.net
I am not sure what you mean. Do you mean that whatever fundemental reality is this remains the same and is not an ontological truth for any particular paradigm worldview.
Is it though I wonder. I think the massive success and immercion within the teach age has itself had an affect that causes people to assume a truth about the power of science as the only way to know reality.
Its subtle and even subliminal. When we hear of new disciveries its seen as revealing something true about fundemental reality. Certain theories are taught and spoke as facts.
I don't think we can seperate the scientist from the science. A bit like we cannot seperate the observer from the observed. I think there will be a metaphysical aspect that will be closely followed that people cannot help but influence the way they measure, what they chose to measure and what they choose to highlight.
Its a pity because I think even just being open I think is healthy and positive. So long as you use your reason. Sometimes that reason lead to a more holistic view which can open up possibilities that may give some answers.
And I think ironically this point has come despite and because of the accummulation of knowledge and tech. As though 'ok we have tried all that and its not meeting our expectations or understanding of what constitutes reality'.
After decades of tech and science this has actually accentuated that there is something more beyond the material world. I think both from the amazing world it has opened up but also because as a result our conscious awareness has increased.
I remeber a lecture maybe from Jordan Peterson on Postmodernism. There was one school of thought that pioneered this line of thinking. But I can't remember who that was. I know
Nietzsche is one but he comes a little later. I think maybe the Frankfurt school of philosophy such as
I think initially a critique in the arts and literature which was redefining the rules about what is real. But I think it really took off from feminism which coined the phrase "the political has become the personal". Feminism and the critical theories and I think especially queer theory are about performance and narratives as the basis for reality. Making self referential truths reality and even trumping objective reality.
Science and empiricle evidence becomes only one way to see reality and even said to be a tool for imposing a certain worldview on others such as Indigenous peoples and minorities. Thats where I think Marxism comes in as this seen as westernised science through colonialism and imposition.
Or just being open. That is one thing I noticed with Dawkins that he was guarded and seemed to want to stick in a narrow lane. Not even entertaining the slightest crossing a rigid line of empiricalism.
To me I think a scientist should be able to play philosopher and entertain alternative ideas and perspectives. To be able to step back into the paradigm and know it is just one of many. In that sense Dawkins could say he realises that science or methodlogical naturalism is just one way to know reality and may be the wrong basis in the greater scheme of things.
Yeah I think in some ways theres a degree of Gnosticism or Mysterism.
I think when you compare Dawkins almost old school evolution compared to for example the extended evolutionary synthesis there such a difference. Dawkins seems very gene centric whereas modern evolution has branched into for example evolutionary psychology and the behavioural sciences.
Which expand the possible influences for evolutionary change. In fact when we introduce these aspects of behaviour it brings in the question of agency and therefore consciousness. Which is near impossible to explain in mere reductionist physical processes. Maybe why he doesn't go there.
Thats interesting you connect Aquinas and Paul. I can see some similarities in the sort of metaphyics of the spiritual and the carnal flesh. But also Gnosticism lol. Maybe they go too far. There still needs to be some grounding.
Yes
I have been keeping tabs on the JWT and its absolutely amazing what they are finding. That we can see so far back is unbelievable.
A quote or rather an idea John Wheeler had with his "
Participatory Anthropic Principle" was a universe that was slowly awakening to itself. That we as conscious observers are actually creating the universe and reality. What we thought the universe and its beginning was 100 years ago is completely different and what we are discovering at break neck speed is changing our understanding again.
In that sense each new understanding and paradigm is a new reality worldview we are living within and always updating. Which is like we are creating and also discovering our universe and reality. This was one of the outcomes of findings from quantum physics and I think has led to an almost explosion of such ideas.
