How can science be objective if our reality is subjective?

How can science be objective if our reality is subjective?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Jaden go back to bed.

Double dubs.

Reality is constructed in our brains. Science is essentially exploiting our senses which were strictly developed to help the propagation of information (DNA) through time.

No, you have it completely backwards. Reality is objective. Our conceptions of it are, by definition, subjective. Science is the constant attempt to make our subjective conceptions of the reality more objective and accurate. There is only one reality and subjectivity is simply the necessary effect of being singular parts of that reality with specific vantage points.

dude what if were in the matrix holy shit

as objective as you assume it to be

...

I'm sorry you're not smart enough to be philosophical

...

it's true though

you are simply not capable of comprehending science or mathematics

*huffs buttfart while contemplating proof about quadruple complex integrals*

A wise man once told me objective truth as well as falsification principle are red herring, it's all about predictive power/heuristics/educated guesses and so on. To me that sounds like the best goal you can ever set for yourself whether you're an existentialist or (whatever the opposite of an existentalist is) etc. It proves "by doing", it doesn't make you feel like a loser because you don't have to feel badman if it doesn't hit every outlying nail on its head, it's life and human confirming plus it brings you closer to abandoning, well let's call them universals (metaphysics) for now because I lack vocabulary for such topics.

It's not philosophy. It's sophistry.

It isnt and doesnt claim to be

>one reality
>not accounting for tulpas
OP What if I told you that all of science in math was basically just heuristics, a guess if you will?
A gauss.

he didn't say reality, he said 'our reality' which can only ever be subjective. do u even Kant?

Reality is not subjective. It's objective, which is why science works and why we need science.
Our PERCEPTION of reality is subjective. Major difference.

You have to account for what I explained here to see it's not objective:

this board is too autistic to understand subjectivity

like im not even memeing its just how autism works

>subjective

*surjective

i know you really want to believe that that's the way subjectivists think—but it's not.

If everything is "subjective" then why are you insisting in a distinction of "subjective" vs "objective"? You are incoherent.

>picture
same goes for philosophy

You'd be surprised.

>Reality is objective.
nice axiom bre

yes I would be surprised

now Veeky Forums failing to understand basic concepts I'm completely prepared for

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem

By averaging the experiences of our subjective reality we can reach an approximation of objective reality. This is the purpose of peer review and replicating experiments.

>our reality is subjective
take your meds, Billy

the two seem different and unique, but they are the same coin

Prove it

Our reality is objective, we all live in the same reality. Our view of reality is subjective. Learn the difference. There's a common misconception that Einstein's relativity implies different realities for different people. Relativity is in fact a theory of an objective reality, in which different reference frames experience the exact same reality differently. Spacetime in relativity is objective and real, and we can conceptualize two frames of reference experiencing the same thing differently as part of an objective phenomenon.

>implying the wanna be philosophers can even comprehend statistics

There's nothing to be proven, it's just semantics and we choose how to define them

show me anything objective

...

>it's just semantics
semantics separate you from the other apes

That doesn't mean they're always helpful on comprehending certain topics

Concepts and their meaning are defined by us to be useful in our context, it's illogical to ask for proof of if a word's signifiance is similar to another's

Have you guys seen the Grifter. Don't watch it. That is why I have been made to order the following godparents. This will be fine with me so fingers crossed for dinner tonight. I'm sure that you can get a chance to win a free email account from Google with over the domain owner of a ski jacket with limited liability partnership. Edinburgh icon icky to get down

Like dyde weeds man

fucking saved/10

>the Grifter

People still doing that old shitty meme?