I Should Have Loved Biology

Re:I Should Have Loved Biology by mistermann on Monday April 22, 2024 @10:33AM (#40114770)

Even more fundamental: anything ~false built on top of Naive Realism can exist indefinitely not just undiscovered to be false, but cannot even be identified as a candidate for consideration.

Let's hope we don't have this problem here on planet Earth, and especially at a core, fundamental level(s)!

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I Should Have Loved Biology by Kim_Bruning on Tuesday April 23, 2024 @11:29AM (#40133062)

Hmm, maybe my explanation above was too ELI5, you'll have to accept my apologies if so, and you may need to explain in more detail what you're asking exactly there.

Meanwhile can you expand on your take on Naive Realism here? What's the specific issue with Naive Realism you're pointing out? (am aware there's issues)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I Should Have Loved Biology by mistermann on Tuesday April 23, 2024 @02:15PM (#40135203)

Humans contemplate "reality" on top of various models of it, as well as various other processes (cognition) and phenomena (culture), thinking they are contemplating reality itself. And the whole world runs on this. It's kind of funny if you think about it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I Should Have Loved Biology by Kim_Bruning on Tuesday April 23, 2024 @08:31PM (#40139045)

I think René Magritte might have been on to you back in 1929. ;-)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images

(More seriously, Indirect Realism is actually several centuries old already, isn't it?)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I Should Have Loved Biology by mistermann on Tuesday April 23, 2024 @09:21PM (#40139363)

Very nice!

And yes, it is indeed very old...old and forgotten, even by those who have knowledge of it.

But it may even be worse: what is it in the first place?

[ Parent | on HN ]