Re:I Should Have Loved Biology
by mistermann on Tuesday April 23, 2024 @09:17PM
(#40139337)
Yes, I am well familiar with the things you say, I see them, and the consequences, every day.
For fun: two things to try to fit into your model:
Re:I Should Have Loved Biology
by Kim_Bruning on Tuesday April 23, 2024 @10:01PM
(#40139622)
I ran into indirect realism quite a while ago, I think in neurophysiology or ethology to begin with. (A percept relating to an object is not the object itself).
Not sure why you bring up that and CWA here at this time though. Does it have something to do with falsifiability from your perspective? I think falsifiability is more of an OWA kind of thing though, isn't it? (The idea being that you never have sufficient information to know if something is true, only if it is positively false. That sounds pretty OWA to me, right?)
I'm interested to hear what you mean by "and the consequences" , because I truly have no idea what you might be seeing, and I'm really curious now. I get the impression you see people making certain kinds of mistakes?
Re:I Should Have Loved Biology
by mistermann on Wednesday April 24, 2024 @11:56AM
(#40145914)
Indirect realism is ever present, and causes many problems in the world.
It's like this:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.knowyourmeme.com/memes/they...
Re:I Should Have Loved Biology
by Kim_Bruning on Wednesday April 24, 2024 @03:45PM
(#40148714)
Hmm, having been linked to a meme, I remain unenlightened. Could you expand on that just a little? What are you getting at?
Re:I Should Have Loved Biology
by mistermann on Thursday April 25, 2024 @10:49AM
(#40158257)
Maybe you didn't engage seriously enough with the meme. Memes are very tricky!
I'm just trying to talk about Falsifiability. That's the only thing I'm talking about.
If you posit an unfalsifiable ( == untestable) hypothesis, then -unsurprisingly- that hypothesis can't be tested.
Fun for teasing people if you're subtle about it, absolutely! Leaves people really confused until they catch on!
But when troubleshooting or dealing with issues in the real world, it's probably best to stick to testable hypotheses.
I'm not really sure how to explain this any better, it's really basic stuff, so I figure you already know this? (I mean it's basically how you can debug a program or fix a car too. I think Feynman learned it by fixing radios as a teenager, and when he grew up he ended up applying it to quantum mechanics.)
[*] Or - worse yet ;-) - are you a philosophy major?