There is no way to “establish whether or not there is an objective reality.” It’s a philosophical position. You either take the reality which we observe and study as part of the material sciences to be objective reality, or you don’t believe it’s objective reality and think it is all sort of invented in the “mind” somehow. Either position you take, you cannot prove or disprove either one, because even if you take the latter position, no evidence I prevent to you could change your mind because to be presented evidence would only mean for that evidence to appear in the mind, and thus wouldn’t prove anything. The best argument we can make is just taking the reality we observe as indeed reality is just philosophically simpler, but that also requires you to philosophically value simplicity, which you cannot prove that with science either.
Comment on shrimp colour drama
ArsonButCute@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks agoI disagree that it’s pointless. I think it may be beneficial to humanity (eventually) to establish whether or not there is an objective reality which we all experience.
pcalau12i@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Guns0rWeD13@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
i agree, but that’s a job for neuroscience, quantum mechanics, and psychology; not a pack of dorks on the fediverse.
ArsonButCute@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
But I want to contribute to humanity in a meaningful way!
-me, a dork on the Fediverse nearly incapable of contributing to humanity in a meaninful way
JuxtaposedJaguar@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
Hey now, you could be the person to force manufacturers to add a new type of warning label to random products!
Guns0rWeD13@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
buy guns
ArsonButCute@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
Working on it.
Sedathems@mander.xyz 2 weeks ago
it’s more in the philosophy ballpark, which shapes the interpretration of methodology and the consequences, in my humble opinion.
Zacryon@feddit.org 2 weeks ago
But what if the dorks on the fediverse are scientists?
Guns0rWeD13@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
then by all means