Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Do you not see that both terms 'real world' and 'reality' convey meanings which are agreed upon by (english speaking) humans?
If this were not so, then how could we possibly understand eachother?
How could I possibly understand what you write at all, if this were not so?
Multiple eyewitnesses saying the same thing?
*Or one witness?
that's going to dramatically colour their views and render their own interpretation of what happened as very unreliable.
And I say there is objective evidence that our brain is involved in everything we perceive .. (with no exceptions). Whereas there is no objective evidence that what 'is true' or what 'reality is' (which seem interchangable from what you've said previously), can be held as being separate from our perceptions.If what we remember is in part invented by our brains, then those memories can not be taken as accurate.
This is of course the scientific method (no disagreements there). The method produces 'Objective Reality' via objectively recording (eg: using cameras etc), independent verification (using other minds to cross-check) and noting the consistencies (&/or discrepencies) in viewings of the same events ... all of which demonstrates a heavy reliance on the human brain (and no evidence of anything separate from that).Kylie said:When it comes to the science that is used to describe how the world works, we have mechanisms in place to eliminate this kind of error. We test it repeatedly. We make recordings of what happens so we aren't just relying on our memory. We get others to replicate our work.
We get others to replicate our work.
Via convention?
Sure you are welcome to think that .. but when I ask you to describe your 'real world', you'll be using language .. and the same meanings.I thought the "real world" was a reality T.V. show...
Is it possible that the theory of evolution works this way with you?
I see...
*Convention...
**Your personal testimonies become in agreement...
And I say there is objective evidence that our brain is involved in everything we perceive .. (with no exceptions). Whereas there is no objective evidence that what 'is true' or what 'reality is' (which seem interchangable from what you've said previously), can be held as being separate from our perceptions.
Sure you are welcome to think that .. but when I ask you to describe your 'real world', you'll be using language .. and the same meanings.
an explanation for why so many tests have shown it to be true
On the whole, I agree.No, via repeatability.
..
Scientific evidence is not an argument from popularity. Scientists do not accept things as true just because lots of scientists think it's true. Scientists accept things as true because there is a great deal of evidence to support that it is true.
when we take into account the number of people involved and the detail with which their tests are recorded and scrutinised, it's extremely unlikely.
Makes no difference .. If I ask you to describe your reality, you'll be using language .. which then (re)creates your reality for me, via the meanings of your words.My "real world"is not necessarily reality.
Observer bias can be reduced or eliminated by:
- Ensuring that observers are well trained.
- Screening observers for potential biases.
- Having clear rules and procedures in place for the experiment.
- Making sure behaviors are clearly defined.
- Setting a time frame for: collecting data, for the duration of the experiment, and for experimental parts.
No, via repeatability.
Scientific evidence is not an argument from popularity. Scientists do not accept things as true just because lots of scientists think it's true. Scientists accept things as true because there is a great deal of evidence to support that it is true.
And yet when you talk about Christians,who are myriad in number...over thousands of years...you don't seem to have the same rationalization. How long has the theory of evolution been around and how many witnesses in favor...not many at all...relatively speaking.
From the link:
Science does all of these. I'm not aware that creationists do these, although if you can show me how they do, I'd be happy to reconsider my views.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?