No. The post you quoted from there was a response to jrbogie. It was intented solely as clarification on how I consider a certain concept differently from the way he does. It wasn't intended as evidence, or support for anything, just clarification for the purpose of better communication. Unfortunately even jr seems to have perceived it as having been some sort of 'argument'. But that wasn't my intent at all.

I agree with you, initial beliefs begin in the mind or we would not have religions to start with. Most people take "on faith" what they are told or what 'fits' with how they think, supporting superstitions. If you walk under a ladder and something bad happens, you attribute the bad to the superstition.

I don't think that would qualify as evidence, unless the idea could be tested under strict conditions with consistent result at least inferring correlation. At that point it may become a point of contention, with the unresolved issue of attributing cause.

Otherwise evidence is what funches said.

you laugh of course but i'll take this post as your answer to my question, what do you think a theory is. i really think that you consider it possible to theorize about the existence of a boogie man. that is the anology that you used to help me to understand your thinking no? i've pretty much passed over your posts until recently because i really do think we speak two entirely different languages. we've obviously nothing to learn from each other so i'll make better use of my scroll wheel in the future. better for both of us me thinks.

thanks, i'll check him out. i've never delved much into qm, still trying to understand that such a thing actually exists. lol. you'll note that i never get into qm disscussions here. i just don't dive into a debate on a subject that i know little or nothing about. of course some here think i do that often huh?

yes, that's the scientific method in a nutshell. in it's simplest breakdown, a scientist postulates a concept. his postulation leads to a hypothosis. a search for credible evidence begins. when evidence that relates to the hypothosis is found, it is tested to see if results can be predicted and repeated. at some point this testing leads to the hypothosis being accepted as a viable theory to be tested and tested again until it fails a future test. at that point the theory is abandoned, as in some newtons laws, or modified, as the big bang has been modified several times. without such a failure of a future test, the testing goes on until humans become extinct because the theory will never be proved.

Sky wrote:



Let's begin with your last post. You have brought all methodology into question. The evidence presented rests it's grounds upon the necessary existence of human subjectivity. You denounce and/or ridicule the term objective because of the fact that all concepts are processed through human perception.

Are you saying that that makes all methodology subjective?

Clarification presented for why/how you consider a concept different is evidence for that.

You're absolutely correct. You can create a theory for anything you want. Scientists don't have any more "evidence" for hidden dimensions or vibrating strings than they have for the boogieman.

They just create a 'theory' that postulates the existence of these things, and then they start devising experiments to test whether or not they can find any "evidence" to support their theory.

In fact many scientists are more than willing to confess that "String Theory" may indeed turn out to be totally false. They may never find any "evidence" to support the theory. And so it may very well fall to the wayside as a completely bogus theory.

How is that any different from the theory of the boogieman?

The theory of the boogieman is scientifically "testable". The theory states that the boogieman is cause of 'bumps in the night'.
So to test the theory all you need to do is check for the cause of every 'bump' you hear in the night. If you always find a cause that was not the 'boogieman' then you have not gained any support for your theory. However, everytime you here a bump that you can't explain then you'll always be left with the possiblity that it could have been caused by this hypothesized boogieman.

And of course, if you actually catch the boogieman in the act then you have 'evidence' for the boogieman and you win a Nobel Prize.

You can have a theory for anything. There's nothing that states that a theory needs to be true. In fact, if you knew ahead of time that it was true then you wouldn't need a theory at all.



Sring theory certainly began in the mind of Leonard Susskind.

Inflation theory began in the mind of Alan Guth.

In fact, Relativity theory begin in the mind of Albert Einstein. He couldn't have possible experienced or observed time dilation or the fact that mass and energy are interchangeable states.

Quantum theory began in the mind of Max Planck. And he didn't even intend to keep it.

You say that we would not have religions otherwise. However, look at pantheism. The idea of pantheism is based on observed evidence. We are a manifestation of this universe. That's an observation. What else could we be? So pantheism is as well-grounded in actual observation of evdience as anything could possibly be. This was the realization of the great sages.

It's not an invention in the minds of men its just a recognition of the evidence of what is. What else could we be if not a manifestation of this universe? You'd actually need to imagine some other scenario to come up with a different idea.

..oh but the fact is that Einstein used LSD..i bet he saw alot of things..damn doper...

First off, I don't "renounce and/or ridicule the term objective". Not sure how you got that idea, but I think it may have been because of the irony comment. Well no "denouncement and/or ridicule" was intended. The intention was only to point out that objectivity itself is a subjective construct.

------------------

There is "self" and "other". "Self" is the subjective and "other" is the objective.

Now when we attempt to discuss things "objectively", we have no choice but to start with the subjective. That is, “self” observes/perceives "other". That is where it all starts.

But that perception/observation is not "other". It is at best a copy of something that came from “other”.

For example, we say we “see” a ball. But we are not actually seeing the ball, we are seeing light that is coming from the ball. We then interpret (subjective) that particular arrangement of light waves as “ball”.

So at best, the only truly objective thing we really have to work with is the light itself, not the ball.

But if we continue with that same deconstructive process, we proceed from the light waves, to the rods and cones in the eye, to the electro-chmical signals generated by those rods and cones, to … what? That’s the end of it. We get down to electro-chemical interactions and that’s the end of the line.

So from a purely objective viewpoint then, we can only conclude that the subjective does not exist.

And where does that leave “objective evidence”?

Well, the logical conclusion is that there is nothing but objective evidence and there is really nothing left to evaluate the objective evidence. So the objective evidence must be evaluating itself.

But then if “that which is being evaluated” is identical to “that which is evaluating”, then attempting to differentiate between the two is a fallacy.

Bottom line is that, if we attempt to use a purely objective approach, we end up with nothing but a circular, self-referencing system in which there is nothing to do the evaluating – i.e. no subjective at all. In other words, there is no “self” – only “other”.

So what’s the alternative?

Well we can leave it at that and give up on the whole concept of “subjective” completely.

Or we can pick some arbitrary point and say “and then a miracle occurs” and subjectivity just pops into existence by majick.

Or we can start from the “subjective” and work outward.

If we postulate that there is an “evaluator”, then all evaluations must be subjective. They cannot be anything else.

So what I’m saying is that objectivity itself is a subjective construct and the only thing that makes something “objective” is agreement, which necessitates two subjective viewpoints.

I’m not saying that “all methodologies are subjective”. I’m only saying that what we label as “objective” requires two subjective viewpoints being in agreement, as opposed to what we label “purely subjective”, which is a single subjective viewpoint with no requirement for agreement.

Now relating that to “evidence”, we can see that objective evidence requires agreement. Without that agreement, it is not “objective”. All "evidence" remains subjective unless and until agreement occurs.

And this is why I continually keep harping on the idea that no methodology is any more inherently valid than any other methodology. The most that can be said is that some methodology has more agreement than another.

And that’s not even to say that agreement can’t be considered a measure of validity either. In fact, agreement really is what determines validity in the final analysis. “Peer review” is a perfect example.

Sky, I am truly humbled and stand in awe of the professional quality of your explanations. Just awesome! If you aren't a teacher somewhere, all I can say is that a lot of talent is going to waste because you sure explain things extremely well.

Well thank you kindly sir.

Other than that little Nobel Prize thing, Fenynman's got nuthin' on me!

I do believe that indeed!

Excelent explanation Sky.

Did you have this viewpoint when you created the "Reaility.vs.Perception" thread?

Wow. That was quite a while back. I had to search out that thread to see what I said there.

I have had this viewpoint for a few decades, so I'd have to say that virtually everything I've ever said regarding philosophy in this forum has been an offshoot of my basic philosophy, which includes the ideas I presented in that post.

So yes, I have held this viewpoint for a long time. It's just that sometimes I do a better job of stringing ideas together in a way that communicates well to others.

And I really have to acknowledge several people in this forum for presenting arguments that helped me refine the details and consequences of some of my own ideas. Particularly Creative and Bushi for "keeping me honest" and Jeannie and Abra for offering alternative views that closely align with mine and which force me to think about the differences and why I hold hold to them.

Cheers to all.

That was an unnecessarily long answer Sky. Even after reading it through several times, I am still left with a sense of not really knowing exactly what you're getting at. I mean, there are some good points to begin with in both of your last two 'in depth' responses, but I fail to see those being successfully connected with each other. There are also a few self-contradicting statements in addition to a few things which I believe are either being conflated or grossly oversimplified. So before proceeding here, I guess the only thing that I would like to ask you at this point in time is this...

What idea are you attempting to support with that given evidence?

Pretty obvious to me.

Jeanniebean has often shared this view as well.

Very good question.

I didn’t really have a particular idea in mind that I was trying to support other than something along the lines of “To each his own”.

Or maybe to align it with the thread topic, “Evidence is in the eye of the beholder.”

Actually, I wasn’t trying to “support a position” so much as “present a viewpoint” (or “frame of reference”). The very viewpoint itself is somewhat anethema to “supporting a position”. By it’s very nature it says that all positions are just as valid as all other positions because “validity” itself is dependent on a frame of reference.

And that’s not to deny that I ever get involved in “supporting a position”. It is blatantly obvious, from many of my posts in these forums, that I do. But in my own mind, that is more of an “exercise in honing my communication skills” than anything else.

This suggests that nothing exists outside a subjective “mental” state. In other words, if YOU are not perceiving something directly – it no longer exists. As you turn away from you’re vehicle, for example, it dissolves as if it were an illusion that only YOU could create.

If this is truly what you believe, then there can be no “others” because if you perceive others then you are creating the illusion of ‘others’ from a subjective state of mind.




This is not a logical conclusion to your statement above. If objectivity is a subjective construct then all methodologies have to be subjective. If all methodologies are subjective then we would not be able to use hueristics, or make predictions that would allow us to competantly and confidently interact with the material world.

Also, according to the statement above you are not granting existence to any OTHER thing so there is no agreement to be had, there is simply your subjective state of mind.



Agreement between subject (yourself) and what?

OBJECT, in this discussion, is something that exists without your conceiving it in your mind, and without your having to perceive it.

It exists without you permission or without your agreement that it should exist. OBJECT has qualities and properties that are independent of mind.

If an object has known attributes of properties and qualities then no amount of thought will change its inherent/intrinsic nature and that nature will not change if you disagree with another about it.



Taking subjective feeling/emotions, prejudices, and interpretations out of an evaluation is the goal of scientific methodology. You insist that it can’t be done, but you do so under the influence of a subjective interpretation that does not allow for objects to exist or interact with the our physical realm apart from you agreement that it can.



Agreement about the nature of an object holds no validity beyond the subjective -- unless qualities or properties of what is being assessed can be quantitatively applied to consistent and relevant predictions. That is objective evidence - unaffected by subjective interpretation.

Truly.