Comment on Why Conservatives Are Attacking ‘Wokepedia’
FaceDeer@fedia.io 3 weeks agoReminds me of various old sayings, such as: "The truth is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." And "if you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything."
I don't necessarily believe in a purely objective reality, personally. I don't know for sure that there is some kind of platonic ideal structure of all things that exists apart from observers and always has and always will, it's a hard thing to figure out how to even start to prove. But there sure does seem like there is one, some kind of underlying pattern to reality that everyone who makes honest rigorous measurements seems to be measuring the same way. So if you just do straightforward science it seems like you automatically end up participating in a single common shared worldview.
Whereas if you just make shit up based on your beliefs, you end up with a worldview that's divergent from everyone else who's also making shit up based on their beliefs.
It gives an inherent advantage to the reality-based people. They end up working together and supporting each other even if they have absolutely no way to communicate with each other. Physicists doing experiments on opposite sides of the planet with no awareness of each other can produce results that, when they're later brought together, click into place as if the two of them had directly collaborated all their lives. It's awesome.
CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 3 weeks ago
I think one can take that even further. It’s possible that the fact that people who rely on truth and morality (which is a human constant if not a natural one) converge, is the whole reason either one has a place in our society. Almost all our instincts lead us away from them, otherwise.
So do you believe in an objective reality, or not? You said a couple of opposite things there.
FaceDeer@fedia.io 3 weeks ago
I don't think I did say opposite things. I don't believe in an objective reality because there's no way to prove it. But it does seem like a very useful concept, and well supported. I generally behave as if there is an objective reality and I'm not sure how I'd manage if there wasn't one.
It's the same as how one shouldn't say the "believe in" any particular scientific law, because it's always possible that evidence will come along later that disproves it. I suppose you could say I believe it's the best idea I know of, but I don't like getting that sloppy with terms like this when actually discussing the concept of "objective reality."
CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 3 weeks ago
Ah, okay. So it comes down to a strict definition of “belief” which requires total certainty. I’ve seen it used that way before, but when I say I believe something, I never mean there’s no chance I’m mistaken.
FaceDeer@fedia.io 3 weeks ago
The risk I try to avoid with this sort of wording is the religious connotations of "belief." When people believe in a religion they generally do intend that to mean "with no chance I'm mistaken" so I don't want anyone to mistake me as having a religious belief in an objective reality. It's not like that.