14
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2025
14 points (85.0% liked)
Ask Science
14303 readers
1 users here now
Ask a science question, get a science answer.
Community Rules
Rule 1: Be respectful and inclusive.
Treat others with respect, and maintain a positive atmosphere.
Rule 2: No harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or trolling.
Avoid any form of harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or offensive behavior.
Rule 3: Engage in constructive discussions.
Contribute to meaningful and constructive discussions that enhance scientific understanding.
Rule 4: No AI-generated answers.
Strictly prohibit the use of AI-generated answers. Providing answers generated by AI systems is not allowed and may result in a ban.
Rule 5: Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
Adhere to community guidelines and comply with instructions given by moderators.
Rule 6: Use appropriate language and tone.
Communicate using suitable language and maintain a professional and respectful tone.
Rule 7: Report violations.
Report any violations of the community rules to the moderators for appropriate action.
Rule 8: Foster a continuous learning environment.
Encourage a continuous learning environment where members can share knowledge and engage in scientific discussions.
Rule 9: Source required for answers.
Provide credible sources for answers. Failure to include a source may result in the removal of the answer to ensure information reliability.
By adhering to these rules, we create a welcoming and informative environment where science-related questions receive accurate and credible answers. Thank you for your cooperation in making the Ask Science community a valuable resource for scientific knowledge.
We retain the discretion to modify the rules as we deem necessary.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Of course, our observations can show that other observations are incorrect. But that's still relying on senses and observation. That doesn't change the fact that reality consists of that which can be observed.
No, there are actually a lot of things we can measure and study that are unobservable with our senses, and a shitload of verifiable ways in which our senses either misinterpret reality or completely fail to perceive it
The way we measure things is by making them observable to our senses. I can't see radiation, but I can read a Geiger counter. Radiation is, therefore, capable of being observed.
Again, everyone seems to be reading this as, "Actually, senses are perfect and incapable of being fooled." Which I never said anything remotely similar to. No shit they can be fooled. This has zero relevance to the discussion.
Let me explain this again.
Stars that leave the observable universe, by definition, cannot be observed. There is no way to verify or falsify any claims that are made about them.
Physicalism states that matter continues to exist regardless of our ability to make observations about it.
Therefore, physicalism claims that stars that leave the universe continue to exist, even though there is no way to verify or falsify this claim.
Therefore, either physicalism is wrong, or verificationism, the idea that our claims need to be supported by evidence and be falsifiable, must be false.
I resolve this contradiction by sacrificing physicalism and saying that matter must be observable. That does not mean observable by the naked eye, or that our senses are somehow infallible, both of which are strawmen that have nothing whatsoever to anything I've said.
This argument is more of a philosophical argument than a scientific one. It reminds me of the classic "if a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, then does it make a sound?". The purpose of this statement is to question whether the observer is a requirement for something to be real.
Ultimately, I think science doesn't have a solid answer to this question. Quantum mechanics might suggest the answer to be "no", since matter exists as a probability function until something measures (observes) it. This would suggest that a lack of observer would leave matter in an exotic state which would not allow such a definite process as falling in the woods. On the other hand, general relativity would suggest that the tree would make a sound because all matter affects the spacetime continuum whether an observer is there or not. This would suggest that the tree's existence is independent from an observer. The tree's matter will bend spacetime and will still be subjected to the effects of existing within a curved spacetime geometry. Therefore, the tree would exist and fall resulting in a sound.
Of course, the big issue in science right now is that we have failed to disprove both quantum mechanics and general relativity; but these two primary theories of science are incompatible with eachother. Ultimately, this means that this question regarding physicalism is presently unanswerable by science.
A Geiger counter doesn't make radiation physically observable, it just gives you information about it, your senses are still 100% incapable of detecting it. You chose the exact words "What could possibly be considered more real than that which we can observe and experience?" and I responded by accurately pointing out that our senses are imperfect and our experiences frequently fail to accurately represent reality. You should leave the explaining to people who are better at it.
That's not what "observable" means, dumbass. You don't have to be able to physically detect radiation with your eyes like some comic book for radiation to be an observable phenomenon.
You are bad at this
You're worse.
Two conversations with you, and both times you:
Misunderstood me
Refused to listen when I tried to explain
Blamed me for your inability to read, and became hostile for no reason, except a narcissistic urge to deflect.
The first time it pissed me off, but this time, I know it's just who you are, and I knew exactly what I was in for when I unblocked you.
Bye.
You're arguing with a subset of people who likely believe there is no such thing as objective reality. I've learned the hard way that it's like arguing with fundamentalist religious types.
How did you know to unblock them if you couldn't read their answers?
When someone I've blocked replies to me, it gives me a notification and shows, "1 more reply" but if I click it it just keeps loading indefinitely. I logged out to check who it was and decided to give them a second chance that they definitely didn't deserve.
Here is my previous interaction with them which demonstrates that their toxic, narcissistic behavior is a trend, not a one-off.
I've never blocked anyone, I've only ever blocked communities, and I assumed it just silenced them completely from your perspective. Strange that it instead gives you an unusable notification instead!
In terms of toxicity, I've had unpleasant interactions with both them and you in the past.
I'm not surprised that you both blew it out of proportion, you both failed to listen to each other, you both refused to back down and you both prolonged the argument longer than necessary. Par for the course.
What did they say that I didn't listen to, exactly?
I'm not going to get embroiled in specifics or join in your argument or your previous argument with the other argumentative user today, I'm afraid.
I don't think you're seeking information, I think you're seeking argument.
And if you're seeking information, you're better of going on the introspective journey on your own, you don't want me as your guide.
I'll answer your question with a question: If you don't believe you're more argumentative than the average lemmy user, why would you pick OBJECTION! as your username?
It's funny how people told me I had said something misleading and couldn't point to what it was, and now you're claiming I refused to listen and can't point to anything I refused to listen to. Somehow, people keep assigning blame to me without being able to substantiate it in any way.
I presented a rather thoughtful line of philosophical reasoning, and expected people to either agree with it or critique it. As one does.
Instead, people started critiquing an idea utterly unrelated to anything I said. Which you are now blaming me for. And now you're saying that I just came here "seeking argument," really? Did you read my initial comment? Do you really, genuinely believe that I was trolling and not looking for an intellectual discussion?
Quite simply, because I find that people say things all the time without providing any sort of evidence, and I believe in calling that out and keeping things more evidence focused.
Whatever problems I might have with people being unable to substantiate or defend their beliefs with evidence, I have much more disdain for people throwing around accusations without evidence. Which people on here do, all the time, constantly.
If you want to say I'm "argumentative," that's fine with me. There's nothing wrong with arguments. What's more wrong is to talk shit about people without being able to substantiate it. Lots of people, not just on here, but on the internet in general, will make up bullshit about a person or group they don't like, and if you call out their bullshit, they use that against you too. "Crybullying" is the term I use for it.
I think everyone ought to have the chance to defend themselves and nobody should be going around talking shit if they can't back it up. I won't claim to be perfect, but if you don't go around saying things you can't back up, then you will find me much easier to get along with.
You appear to be attempting to prove to the world that I'm wrong to assert that you and the other user unnecessarily blow out of proportion and prolong arguments without truly listening, by strongly emotive argument and taking what I said as a series of unconnected assertions for to destroy, taking on board nothing of what I said and instead turning my reluctance to join in your preexisting arguments into some sort of proof that my conclusions are wrong.
You seem to be unable to see the wood for the trees. The irony is strong.
Did it not occur to you that arguing so strongly that I'm wrong, accompanied by name-calling no less, might instead show that I'm right? It wasn't meant as a trap, but you twisted it around until you ensnared yourself.
Ask yourself if you really do demand as much evidence from people or points with which you instinctively agree, and you'll see that your self-perceived intellectual integrity of believing only what people can prove to you is merely double standards and a sham: I accused you of being innecessarily argumentative and you shouted that I had provided no evidence!!!
This is one of your favourite forms of disagreement, I suspect because it makes you feel you have logic on your side, but the asymmetry in the demand for proof is bias, and concluding that people who you disagree with are wrong because they failed in your one-person prosecution, judge & jury court is naive.
Your court was not constituted to discover truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. You should be surprised every time it finds it.
Oh hey, look, I called it.
What I actually said, by the way, was that I don't mind if you call me argumentative. The thing that you don't have evidence for is when you assigned fault to me in my conversation with the other person.
This is such typical crybully behavior. Talks mad shit, can't back up anything, and then whines about it. What do you imagine you're accomplishing here?
You came in here just to talk shit. Literally, you saw two people you didn't like in an argument and you loved it, because it gave you the opportunity to gloat and act all self-righteous.
You don't even recognize your own behavior when I specifically call it out. I don't know what I'm supposed to do with that. Are you even aware of what you're doing, or is it just second-nature?
Literally what would I have to say to make you happy? You want me to just take all the blame and prostrate myself before your superiority, and anything short of that, any attempt to stand up for myself, or to explain my actions, is just further proof of my wrongdoing to you. This is exactly why I picked the name I did, because I completely reject your whole way of doing things and of approaching conflict.
Cool story
I've given up the conversation with them, it's not worth the effort.