• afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    Ok? You don’t need consensus to determine truth. It is about model making and evidence building.

    Is it hot?

    Touch it, have someone else touch it, use an IR gun on it, smell it, feel the warmth air around it, put a thermometer on it, get a witness account of how it got warm…

    Each piece of data builds confidence. Eventually you get a wonder theory about how it got warm and a model from how it returns back to normal.

    • Akasazh@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Yes it’s quite an ok basis for the scientific method, but op was referring to objective truth. Shared subjectivity might be the best approximation, however it’s no basis for objective ontology

        • Akasazh@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          How can you be sure it’s not a Cartesian ghost trying to fill your senses into seeing one?

          • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            If you think there is a ghost it is up to you to provide evidence for it. And after you do that please explain how your ghost interacts with the real world in a perfectly consistent manner.

            Remember it is always up to the person claiming something exists to advance evidence

            • Akasazh@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              real world

              Ontology is about how we would objectively prove there is such a thing as the real world. There is a reason in science we’re not talking about truth finding, but falsification.

              Basically we can only come up with theories and try to disprove them. Objectively proving existence is an unsolved problem.

              But that’s a tldr of the entire history of philosophy, there’s plenty of there to explore.

              • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                We got it backwards from the beginning. It is all these weird brain in the jar arguments that need to prove themselves not the physical world that does.