I'm not a scientist man!

[Borachio]

I suppose #572 is mostly fine. But it's just a fine example, I think, of where this thread is going. We each seem to be addressing questions that haven't really been asked.

I am in my natural state. Hopelessly lost.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Do you not think the methodical process of science - exemplarily the idea of the theory being based upon an observation which is then repeatingly tested through experimentation and lastly put against peer review - follows a set pattern which must be followed in order for that to be science? That's the only thing I call dogmatic because it has to follow a set process in order for science to exist.

But that is not the definition of dogmatic. Again, I would fully agree that some people are indeed dogmatic about science, which actually does mean they think opinions are facts. But science itself is not. It is actually just the opposite despite using a "set process", much like many other activities.

I think the issue is that you understand dogma can only be theories but I understand dogma can be both. Note that I say "understand" - I think the issue here is merely a lingual one. In Danish, dogma usually refers to a set process or row of methods - a methology perhaps? I'm not sure how to phrase it.

That is certainly not what it means in this country. The scientific method is clearly a methodology. I would certainly agree with that. But dogma is much stronger than that.

Again, the word "dogma" is rarely used outside of a religious context, or outside of a context where they are mocking religion. And "dogmatic" connotes that opinions are being construed to be facts.

And you say I'm putting up strawmen? Stop being so defensive!

That's not a strawman. I just didn't see how it pertains.

It was you who claimed dogma were inherently religious. I told you they were not exemplified by how nineties Danish movie making saw a movement with several dogma that had to be followed in order for these "dogma movies" to be "valid". Those movies had nothing to do with science, but I merely demonstrated that your claim that dogma had to be religious is just plain out wrong. Then I could go from there.

I never claimed it had to be religious. But it's usual context is definitely so because there must be an element of belief which has little or no empirical support. I really can't come up with any examples where that doesn't describe a religion or a pseudo-religion.

You claim that these Danish movies are an example, but from the Wiki page they appear to have little or nothing to do with dogma. It is merely a buzzword picked to describe their deliberate self-imposed limitations in their so-called "Vow of Chastity":

The goal of the Dogme collective is to purify filmmaking by refusing expensive and spectacular special effects, post-production modifications and other technical gimmicks. The filmmakers concentrate on the story and the actors' performances. They believe this approach may better engage the audience, as they are not alienated or distracted by overproduction. To this end, Lars von Trier and Thomas Vinterberg produced ten rules to which any Dogme film must conform. These rules, referred to as the "Vow of Chastity," are as follows:[1]

Filming must be done on location. Props and sets must not be brought in. If a particular prop is necessary for the story, a location must be chosen where this prop is to be found.
The sound must never be produced apart from the images or vice versa. Music must not be used unless it occurs within the scene being filmed, i.e., diegetic.
The camera must be a hand-held camera. Any movement or immobility attainable in the hand is permitted. The film must not take place where the camera is standing; filming must take place where the action takes place.
The film must be in colour. Special lighting is not acceptable (if there is too little light for exposure the scene must be cut or a single lamp be attached to the camera).
Optical work and filters are forbidden.
The film must not contain superficial action (murders, weapons, etc. must not occur.)
Temporal and geographical alienation are forbidden (that is to say that the film takes place here and now).
Genre movies are not acceptable.
The film format must be Academy 35 mm.
The director must not be credited.

You: "Don't mix inherently religious things in with science! It's corrupting!"

Only, again, that is clearly not what I am stating in this particular context, which essentially summarizes this entire discussion.

But I would basically agree with that sentiment while choosing a completely different word than "corrupting" for why they should not be mixed, which is also why ID should not be studied in a science class. However, that is the topic of a different thread...

 

[Angst]

That particular "buzzword" was used for a reason. In Danish, any kind of procedure can easily be dogmatic per definition of dogma. I think that's the basic issue here. Dogma is not only about what is fact here, it's rather about how things must be done and is used in the second sense much more often. Using your English definition of dogma on the Danish dogma movement - saying it isn't dogmatic - is kind of missing the point of semantics.

.. Or rather, sure it's not dogmatic, but it's dogmatisk.

 

[Formaldehyde]

They should probably allow more Catholics to immigrate so they can get a true sense of what dogma is all about. Kevin Smith's comments regarding his own film by the same name is a good place to start.

And he's not a scientist, man.

 

[Global Skeptic]

About certainty

• (1) All justification in pursuit of certain knowledge has also to justify the means of justification and therefore there can be no end.
• (2) One can stop at self-evidence or common sense or fundamental principles or anything else, but in doing so the intention to install certain justification is abandoned.
• (3) The third horn of the trilemma is the application of a circular argument.

In other words certainty appears to be a state in brains.

About justification or a reason to act.

• For X is Y as a reason for action, X is Y doesn't have to be a fact as X is Y, but rather X is Y only has to work as a reason.
  Example - An action done a person, the reasoning behind it and the person doing it can all be claimed as wrong, bad and/or evil. I.e. X is Y, but it appears so that such justification has no observable data to back it up; in short you can't see wrong/bad and/or evil.

The connection between subjective and objective as science.
In general science works, because it appears so that a part of reality is objective. It means that an objective fact is so, because you can't change that it is so by changing your brain. On the other hand subjective is dependent on the actual cognition and/or emotions in your brain.
The difference between, "I think/feel something is right/good/best" and "We can observe a subject reports something is right/good/best" is that science uses the apparent fact that what is subjective to me, is objective to you. I.e. you can't change my brain by changing your brain, but what goes on in my brain is still subjective.

This difference is not particular to subjective and objective, but can be found in the is/ought distinction as well as in such pairs of words as describe/evaluate, quantitative/qualitative and so on. Indeed the word natural is such a word as it is a part of natural/cultural, but that is not unique.

"Man is the measure of all things: of things which are, that they are, and of things which are not, that they are not" - Protagoras

The key word is measure and the standard interpretation is that it means subjective measurement. I.e. everything else is objective to you, but what that means to you is subjective to you.

So the best objective methodology to understand reality in toto appears to be a contradiction, because we can't understand all of reality objectively. As a slogan - there are no independent observers for all of reality. It may be that all of reality is natural, but then it is natural that I can act thusly - No, reality is not natural.

 

[Crezth]

But GS, nothing exists. Checkmate.

 

[Global Skeptic]

But GS, nothing exists. Checkmate.

Not a piece of advice, but rather a non-fact. Never ever "f*" existence and non-existence with a "grunt" in philosophy. Existence or rather being qua being is basic 101 philosophy. It is expected of the "grunts" in philosophy, that we can "torture" each other with walls of texts on existence, for which the "recruits/rookies" "will break under fire!!!"

So do you want to "play" in earnest about "everything, something, something else and/or nothing" as to - philosophy is the combined human effort with critical thinking to give correct answer.

Or should we keep it at "existence is non-existence" and all the one-liners for which my favorite is "reality is an illusion albeit a very persistent one".

 

[Crezth]

Guh you've lost me completely.

 

[Global Skeptic]

But GS, nothing exists. Checkmate.

Not a piece of advice, but rather a non-fact. Never ever "f*" existence and non-existence with a "grunt" in philosophy. Existence or rather being qua being is basic 101 philosophy. It is expected of the "grunts" in philosophy, that we can "torture" each other with walls of texts on existence, for which the "recruits/rookies" "will break under fire!!!"

So do you want to "play" in earnest about "everything, something, something else and/or nothing" as to - philosophy is the combined human effort with critical thinking to give correct answer.

Or should we keep it at "existence is non-existence" and all the one-liners for which my favorite is "reality is an illusion albeit a very persistent one".

Guh you've lost me completely.

Testing, testing - is there anybody out there??? Come in, if you can understand me!!!

 

[Angst]

GS, I might have a look over your post later, but as you really did not address mine, I don't see a point in it.

They should probably allow more Catholics to immigrate so they can get a true sense of what dogma is all about. Kevin Smith's comments regarding his own film by the same name is a good place to start.

And he's not a scientist, man.

... Ok, why the crossphrasing of who being a scientist? I don't get it. Who's it a sting to? Catholics? Me? Yourself? Kevin Smith?

true sense of what dogma is

Didn't I just point out that this wasn't the case semantically? But anyways, you don't need to be Catholicism to understand Catholicism, and even if you did, we have been traditionally Lutheran, and it's not particularly undogmatic as a faith either.

 

[Borachio]

Testing, testing - is there anybody out there??? Come in, if you can understand me!!!

The answer to that is generally no.

Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong. But easy to understand? No.

This could be because what you're saying is nonsense. Or it could be that your audience is stupid.

Who knows?

Maybe a bit of both.

(I'm quite tempted to change my username to Global_Idiot.)

 

[Global Skeptic]

The answer to that is generally no.

Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong. But easy to understand? No.

This could be because what you're saying is nonsense. Or it could be that your audience is stupid.

Who knows?

Maybe a bit of both.

(I'm quite tempted to change my username to Global_Idiot.)

Well, philosophy is also about whether nonsense is real??? Or if you like what is the ontological status of nonsense?
I am a philosopher, but because I am a global skeptic, I am also a wing-nut!

 

[Borachio]

You have a taste for Theatre of the Absurd?

 

[Global Skeptic]

You have a taste for Theatre of the Absurd?

Yes, in part! In general reality becomes absurd when we try to answer coherently what is "everything, something, something else and/or nothing".

 

[Borachio]

Every now and again it all strikes me as a huge joke.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Yes, in part! In general reality becomes absurd when we try to answer coherently what is "everything, something, something else and/or nothing".

That's easy. Everything we see is a projection of reality as it happens on the edge of our universe. Nothing we do influences this, we don't even actually 'do' anything, since as a part of the observable reality we are also projections of our real selves in whichever way they (we) exist.

 

[Global Skeptic]

That's easy. Everything we see is a projection of reality as it happens on the edge of our universe. Nothing we do influences this, we don't even actually 'do' anything, since as a part of the observable reality we are also projections of our real selves in whichever way they (we) exist.

I think I get it. In my words reality in toto is objective, but from the "inside" it is subjective.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I think I get it.

You're a smarter man than I am. It completely boggles my mind.

In my words reality in toto is objective, but from the "inside" it is subjective.

Hmmm... not sure about that. But that figures since I wasn't sure to start off with.

 

[Borachio]

Hmmm. I'm inclined to be more solipistic myself.

Everything I see is a projection of my own mind. Including my perception of myself.

Nothing exists outside my perception (taken very broadly to mean my "form of knowledge") of it.

Of course, I don't behave as if this is true. Since part of my perception is that it isn't true! But I can't escape what I perceive to be the subjective nature of the world however I look at it. Since, for me, there is only me looking at it.

Good grief!

 

[Global Skeptic]

Hmmm. I'm inclined to be more solipistic myself.

Everything I see is a projection of my own mind. Including my perception of myself.

Nothing exists outside my perception (taken very broadly to mean my "form of knowledge") of it.

Of course, I don't behave as if this is true. Since part of my perception is that it isn't true!

Well, metaphysical/ontological solipsism is not the same as epistemological solipsism. I accept as "true" that reality in toto is objective(das Din an sich), but it is empty for any epistemological knowledge of X is Y objectively. I.e. you can know that reality exists as such, but you can't know what that means in practice(Rene Descartes et al).

Edit: I think we agree