1 2 > 
 
   
 

Evidence Based Reality

 
Brick Bungalow
 
Avatar
 
 
Brick Bungalow
Total Posts:  4518
Joined  28-05-2009
 
 
 
25 October 2012 21:30
 

Or perhaps, evidence and logic based reality. Something many secularists promote and that I, myself, am almost sold upon as both the most true and most beautiful outlook I’ve yet encountered.

If you include yourself I’m curious about how you might describe the foundations of such a view. What assumptions and structures support it?

For instance: Can logic be argued to describe the world?  Or does it simply describe the mind? How would one establish the value of logic without circularity?

Is there a central value or first principle you reference when evaluating competing or unfamiliar ideas? If so, can you identify how it was arrived at?

For myself, I have trouble making such arguments. I find there is a hard stop of both intuition and reason where my only real recourse is to beauty. This is satisfying enough when I’m alone with my thoughts but its a bit troubling when taken to task by people with different conclusions.

I’m not really soliciting advice or argument. I’m just curious about the experience of other people.

 
BigNose
 
Avatar
 
 
BigNose
Total Posts:  489
Joined  20-10-2012
 
 
 
26 October 2012 15:32
 

I didn’t want to be the first to respond here, but no else is biting.
Not sure if my musings are on your level Brick, but here’s my tuppence:
While I certainly feel some pride from labelling myself as an “Evidence Based Realist”. The truth is, it’s seems more of an aspiration than a statement of fact.
I often find myself obsessively pondering and analysing, re-pondering and re-analysing and have difficulty laying my anchor where I don’t have “respected experts” to help me triangulate my position.
It’s also surprising how “sleeping on it” makes a difference to my perspective and insight. Sometimes it seems that when I power down my processor, an auto-update (that I don’t write or authorise) appears to be installed on re-boot.
Also, with respect to my working life, where I’m confident of my expertise, I tend to initially roll on instinct and gut feeling, then use evidence and reasoning the support my position after I’m committed. Yet I do not trust anyone else’s instincts and gut feelings. If they can’t provide evidence, they score zero.
Not sure if this is the kind of response you’re after, but I’m looking forward to reading other replies, just hope I’ve helped overcome the inertia.

 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  14672
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
26 October 2012 15:34
 
Brick Bungalow - 25 October 2012 07:30 PM

Or perhaps, evidence and logic based reality. Something many secularists promote and that I, myself, am almost sold upon as both the most true and most beautiful outlook I’ve yet encountered.

If you include yourself I’m curious about how you might describe the foundations of such a view. What assumptions and structures support it?

For instance: Can logic be argued to describe the world?  Or does it simply describe the mind? How would one establish the value of logic without circularity?

Is there a central value or first principle you reference when evaluating competing or unfamiliar ideas? If so, can you identify how it was arrived at?

For myself, I have trouble making such arguments. I find there is a hard stop of both intuition and reason where my only real recourse is to beauty. This is satisfying enough when I’m alone with my thoughts but its a bit troubling when taken to task by people with different conclusions.

I’m not really soliciting advice or argument. I’m just curious about the experience of other people.

I would say that logic doesn’t describe the world directly, what it does is tell us how to use language in a way that avoids contradiction.  So that’s a good first step if we assume that the world doesn’t allow actual contradictions.  But logical arguments need initial hypotheses and to get these we’ve got to look to actual evidence.  And to collect evidence we need basic assumptions that indicate what sort of evidence will be relevant and what can be ignored.  And that gets us into all sorts of interesting questions…

 
Jb8989
 
Avatar
 
 
Jb8989
Total Posts:  5679
Joined  31-01-2012
 
 
 
26 October 2012 15:53
 

sometimes I use this formula:

(1)abstraction: attempting to distinguish reality from expression of reality by deepening my situational awareness.

(2)filtration: examining structural components of each level of abstraction to determine reality v. illusion. I often ask the impact and extent of stimuli on me.

(3)Comparison/affect: How am I misappropriating reality. Am I doing within reason? What does that mean to me? What does that mean to me as part of the many systems I interact?

 
 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  6119
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
26 October 2012 17:10
 
Brick Bungalow - 25 October 2012 07:30 PM

Can logic be argued to describe the world?

Language describes the world.  Language can be composed of words, music, visual arts and more.
Logic is a tool that allows us to fine-tune and edit the language used so that the poetic doesn’t overpower the factual or predictable.  It allows us to identify fallacious thinking or fallacious thought-constructs around our linguistic musings and helps ensure that when we’re talking about stuff we’re not lying to ourselves or others - consciously or subconsciously.

Brick Bungalow - 25 October 2012 07:30 PM

Or does it simply describe the mind?

Logic is a tool of the mind.  It can be used to edit our descriptions of mind/minding/mindfulness to ensure that they are not similarly flawed by our plastic linguistic propensities.

Brick Bungalow - 25 October 2012 07:30 PM

How would one establish the value of logic without circularity?

The value of logic should be reasonably evident if used to unclutter our linguistic conceptions of our surroundings.  For example, if my self-justification of a position, thought or social story requires the use of any common logical fallacies, I can easily conclude that my reasoning needs revision, work, or closer examination.  Futher, if points being made to me about someone-else’s conclusions or positions require the use of common logical fallacies, I can fairly confidently conclude that those explanations need revision, work or closer examination.

Logic becomes a tool for troubleshooting linguistic transmission of idea based content.

Brick Bungalow - 25 October 2012 07:30 PM

Is there a central value or first principle you reference when evaluating competing or unfamiliar ideas?

A number.  Sensibility, Verifiability, Reproducibility, Falsifiability.

Brick Bungalow - 25 October 2012 07:30 PM

If so, can you identify how it was arrived at?

Arrival suggests a journey.  For me the journey usually only happens if there is a clear case of tension or conflict contained in a concept.  (Add to that a conflict or tension between what I already assume I know and what I already think I know.)

In many cases these analyses are fleeting and don’t require a whole lot of conscious analysis.  In some cases they require a lot of thoughtful deconstruction and pattern projection to analyze fully and come to a conclusion about.  But in many cases if a new concept or phenomena doesn’t stand up to the four qualifiers above (Sensibility, Verifiability, Reproducibility, Falsifiability) it can easily be discarded as not very relevant or not very attention-worthy.  There are, of course, exceptions.

 
 
eudemonia
 
Avatar
 
 
eudemonia
Total Posts:  9031
Joined  05-04-2008
 
 
 
26 October 2012 17:24
 

I’ll make a bold claim and say that evidence based reality is the only reality that there actually is.

 
 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  19545
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
26 October 2012 17:29
 
Epaminondas - 26 October 2012 03:24 PM

I’ll make a bold claim and say that evidence based reality is the only reality that there actually is.

So if we don’t have evidence of something it doesn’t exist or it isn’t real?  Is that what you are boldly claiming?

 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  5949
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
26 October 2012 19:09
 
Ecurb Noselrub - 26 October 2012 03:29 PM
Epaminondas - 26 October 2012 03:24 PM

I’ll make a bold claim and say that evidence based reality is the only reality that there actually is.

So if we don’t have evidence of something it doesn’t exist or it isn’t real?  Is that what you are boldly claiming?

That’s not how I see his claim. Just because we don’t have evidence of something doesn’t mean evidence of that thing doesn’t exist.

 
 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  19545
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
26 October 2012 19:23
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 26 October 2012 05:09 PM
Ecurb Noselrub - 26 October 2012 03:29 PM
Epaminondas - 26 October 2012 03:24 PM

I’ll make a bold claim and say that evidence based reality is the only reality that there actually is.

So if we don’t have evidence of something it doesn’t exist or it isn’t real?  Is that what you are boldly claiming?

That’s not how I see his claim. Just because we don’t have evidence of something doesn’t mean evidence of that thing doesn’t exist.

Well, of course. We didn’t have actual evidence of much of the universe before Hubble, but it was still there.  But the unknown, unevidenced universe was a reality. If he means that evidence is the best way of knowing that something is real or that something exists, that’s clear. But there may be other ways - such as a hypothesis based on mathematical calculations. And perhaps there are more exotic methods of transmission of information about reality.  But if the claim is simply that the best way of knowing reality is by evidence, I’ve no problem with that.

 
SkepticX
 
Avatar
 
 
SkepticX
Total Posts:  14483
Joined  24-12-2004
 
 
 
26 October 2012 19:53
 
Ecurb Noselrub - 26 October 2012 05:23 PM
Antisocialdarwinist - 26 October 2012 05:09 PM
Ecurb Noselrub - 26 October 2012 03:29 PM
Epaminondas - 26 October 2012 03:24 PM

I’ll make a bold claim and say that evidence based reality is the only reality that there actually is.

So if we don’t have evidence of something it doesn’t exist or it isn’t real?  Is that what you are boldly claiming?

That’s not how I see his claim. Just because we don’t have evidence of something doesn’t mean evidence of that thing doesn’t exist.

Well, of course. We didn’t have actual evidence of much of the universe before Hubble, but it was still there.  But the unknown, unevidenced universe was a reality. If he means that evidence is the best way of knowing that something is real or that something exists, that’s clear. But there may be other ways - such as a hypothesis based on mathematical calculations. And perhaps there are more exotic methods of transmission of information about reality.  But if the claim is simply that the best way of knowing reality is by evidence, I’ve no problem with that.


Great angle for excusing the pure presumption required to believe there’s a god, man!

As long as no one points out the obvious difference between gaining genuine understanding through new evidence and pure presumption in an epistemic vacuum, anyway.

I don’t think anyone will see through it.

 
 
Brick Bungalow
 
Avatar
 
 
Brick Bungalow
Total Posts:  4518
Joined  28-05-2009
 
 
 
27 October 2012 04:03
 
BigNose - 26 October 2012 01:32 PM

I didn’t want to be the first to respond here, but no else is biting.
Not sure if my musings are on your level Brick, but here’s my tuppence:
While I certainly feel some pride from labelling myself as an “Evidence Based Realist”. The truth is, it’s seems more of an aspiration than a statement of fact.
I often find myself obsessively pondering and analysing, re-pondering and re-analysing and have difficulty laying my anchor where I don’t have “respected experts” to help me triangulate my position.
It’s also surprising how “sleeping on it” makes a difference to my perspective and insight. Sometimes it seems that when I power down my processor, an auto-update (that I don’t write or authorise) appears to be installed on re-boot.
Also, with respect to my working life, where I’m confident of my expertise, I tend to initially roll on instinct and gut feeling, then use evidence and reasoning the support my position after I’m committed. Yet I do not trust anyone else’s instincts and gut feelings. If they can’t provide evidence, they score zero.
Not sure if this is the kind of response you’re after, but I’m looking forward to reading other replies, just hope I’ve helped overcome the inertia.


Totally cool. As I said, I’m not really asking for my own questions to be answered. I’m more interested in personal vingnettes or testimonials that describe a base of personal value. I think when persons can affirm some set of preferences or apprehensions of ‘the good’ they have a basis for further conversation. Too often, in my opinion, philosophy and worldview issues are approached with an appeal to facts and argument. Which is fine when the value-consensus is well established but almost always useless when it isn’t.

 
Jb8989
 
Avatar
 
 
Jb8989
Total Posts:  5679
Joined  31-01-2012
 
 
 
27 October 2012 13:01
 

To me, the search for explaining and expanding values and reality is similar to searching for an expertise. That is, we seek to understand the development of values as an interaction between individual characteristics (abilities, personalities, interests, self-concept and so forth) and the environment, as jointly influencing which person develop certain values and which ones do not. Additionally, we concern ourselves with the direction of investment of cognitive resources, which in turn determines the domain of values that are developed. People generally don’t question reality much beyond this process IMO.

Logic is extremely uself to substantially decontextualize the process of value and reality searching. However the process is limited. It’s limited through interactions between intelligence-as-process (fluid intelligence) and the development of key personality and interest variables? As a result, individuals devote greater or lesser amounts of cognitive energy (logic, reason, whatever) to acquisition domain-specific values and realities.

That’s just a thought I had that may or may not add to the thread because it explains layman than anything

[ Edited: 27 October 2012 13:06 by Jb8989]
 
 
boagie
 
Avatar
 
 
boagie
Total Posts:  125
Joined  28-12-2011
 
 
 
20 March 2013 13:42
 

Does anyone here make a distinction between apparent reality and ultimate reality, the significant s is I believe well establish by modern physics, ultimate reality it is said, is not a place of things while apparent reality is a biological readout. Apparent reality arises due to the affect of object upon a biological subject, thus apparent reality only has a relational existence..So the long held belief that subject and object stand or fall together, still holds for apparent reality. In the absence of consciousness the world as understood as apparent reality is utterly meaningless, indeed in the absence of a conscious subject the object/physical world ceases to exist. The flip side of this is that if one takes away the object or the stimulus from ultimate reality, consciousness ceases to be.—it gives our existence a rather mystical feel to it no?

[ Edited: 20 March 2013 13:48 by boagie]
 
 
Nhoj Morley
 
Avatar
 
 
Nhoj Morley
Total Posts:  5522
Joined  22-02-2005
 
 
 
20 March 2013 14:27
 
boagie - 20 March 2013 12:42 PM

-it gives our existence a rather mystical feel to it no?

You might want to elaborate on your use of mystical. Either that or get a thesaurus.

 
boagie
 
Avatar
 
 
boagie
Total Posts:  125
Joined  28-12-2011
 
 
 
20 March 2013 18:55
 

Nhoj Morley,Administrator

Mystical—Having a import not apparent to the senses nor obvious to the intelligence,beyond ordinary understanding—The mystical style of Blake. Any other words you find problematic?

[ Edited: 20 March 2013 19:45 by boagie]
 
 
MARTIN_UK
 
Avatar
 
 
MARTIN_UK
Total Posts:  4753
Joined  19-08-2010
 
 
 
20 March 2013 20:08
 

Hello Boagie

Nhoj Morley - 20 March 2013 01:27 PM
boagie - 20 March 2013 12:42 PM

-it gives our existence a rather mystical feel to it no?

You might want to elaborate on your use of mystical. Either that or get a thesaurus.

boagie - 20 March 2013 05:55 PM

Nhoj Morley,Administrator

Mystical—Having a import not apparent to the senses nor obvious to the intelligence,beyond ordinary understanding—The mystical style of Blake. Any other words that are problematic.


The term mystical has many connotations of a religious or supernatural nature. Inferred also with your Blake reference.

I recall Blake claimed visions of Elijah as inspiration, among other experiences of a religious nature, which is reflected in his writing.

So is that what you mean by “Mystical”... it just helps to understand you more clearly.

 
 1 2 >