[user104658]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

The former is driven by agenda and is never really a fact and the latter is irrefutable and factual.

This is actually not how science works at all... scientific theorems shift, change, evolve and come in and out of general consensus constantly. There's no such thing as irrefutable science... in fact, being available for criticism and peer review is an essential part OF science, and considering any scientific observation to be "unquestionable fact" isn't science, but dogma, and about as unscientific as it gets.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

This is actually not how science works at all... scientific theorems shift, change, evolve and come in and out of general consensus constantly. There's no such thing as irrefutable science... in fact, being available for criticism and peer review is an essential part OF science, and considering any scientific observation to be "unquestionable fact" isn't science, but dogma, and about as unscientific as it gets.

But in terms of 'does space exist', that **** is irrefutable. I'm talking about baseline facts that form the backbone of our reality, the earth is not flat, oxygen is a thing even though we can't see it, space is vast and exists etc.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

But in terms of 'does space exist', that **** is irrefutable. I'm talking about baseline facts that form the backbone of our reality, the earth is not flat, oxygen is a thing even though we can't see it, space is vast and exists etc.

Well yes. Or 99.9% I suppose. Theoretically, every aspect of perception is just neurons firing and everything could be an illusion, we might be in a huge simulation in an existence that bears absolutely no similarity to this one, and the entire concept of the universe could be the imaginings of the great Lizard Race who control the system from their giant flat earth that floats through a neon cloud of energy.

... I mean it's not likely but still...

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Well yes. Or 99.9% I suppose. Theoretically, every aspect of perception is just neurons firing and everything could be an illusion, we might be in a huge simulation in an existence that bears absolutely no similarity to this one, and the entire concept of the universe could be the imaginings of the great Lizard Race who control the system from their giant flat earth that floats through a neon cloud of energy.

... I mean it's not likely but still...

don't give people ideas TS

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

don't give people ideas TS

It's basic Descartes 2S; "Cogito, ergo sum". There is no such thing as objective fact beyond the fact of one's own existence. Everything else is a balance of probabilities.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Well yes. Or 99.9% I suppose. Theoretically, every aspect of perception is just neurons firing and everything could be an illusion, we might be in a huge simulation in an existence that bears absolutely no similarity to this one, and the entire concept of the universe could be the imaginings of the great Lizard Race who control the system from their giant flat earth that floats through a neon cloud of energy.

... I mean it's not likely but still...

That sounds more like existential philosophy than anything scientific though.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

That sounds more like existential philosophy than anything scientific though.

Existentialism isn't inherently unscientific, though, unless you disagree with the premise that all perception is ultimately experienced internally. If you accept that (and you have to, if you believe in the basics of neuropsychology above spiritualism).

If you accept that our entire perception of every aspect of reality is, to quote Mr Morpheus, "electrical signals interpreted by our brain" - this conversation, the soup you just ate, the vast complexities of every aspect of our understanding of the universe - then it logically follows that any or all of those signals could be false or manipulated... the only thing that is certain is that those signals exist in some form, and we are aware of them and have cognisance, and so with that being the case we do know that ONE thing is objective fact; simply that something must exist to ponder existance ("I am aware of myself as a thinking being, therefore at least one thinking being exists").

Obviously it's VERY highly probable that existence (as far as we can experience it) does exist in more or less the form we understand, and we can go forward from there, it is nonetheless a probability and not an objective fact. Every aspect of existence is theorem. You won't find any real scientist (who isn't a hack) describing any scientific discovery as unquestionable fact... just a series of ongoing observations that makes something increasingly likely with each repetition.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

This is actually not how science works at all... scientific theorems shift, change, evolve and come in and out of general consensus constantly. There's no such thing as irrefutable science... in fact, being available for criticism and peer review is an essential part OF science, and considering any scientific observation to be "unquestionable fact" isn't science, but dogma, and about as unscientific as it gets.

Great post, TS.