Science has progressed in the last 300 years, and what that means is that we know a hell of a lot more than we did 300 years ago, and the vast bulk of that knowledge is due to empirical science. But isn't that just obvious?

Actually new findings in quantum mechanics over the past 100 years are quickly reversing just about everything that was discovered "empirically" over the 300 years prior to it, and I hate to break it to you naive realists, but the your ship has pretty much sunk. Try reading a science journal published since 1920, the world does not exist without an observer. All science has done in the past 400 years is get us back to Aristotle, and yes, put some robots in space.

Isn't it that color is simply the property given to an object as our eyes interpret it?

I am arguing that a controlled experiment gives us a view from nowhere.

We are beings which always view the world from somewhere. How do you suggest that we relate a view from nowhere to a view from somewhere? It cannot be done.

So, without light, the property of an object is black

Try reading a science journal published since 1920, the world does not exist without an observer.

All science has done in the past 400 years is get us back to Aristotle, and yes, put some robots in space.

But, our new findings are progress, aren't they? We did not have them earlier. Isn't that right? In any case, I was not referring only to QM. I was referring to discoveries like antibiotics and DNA. And little things like the theory of relativity, the existence of germs, bits and pieces like that.

---------- Post added 05-15-2010 at 12:13 AM ----------



No. But even if that were true, wouldn't it be a property?

---------- Post added 05-15-2010 at 12:51 AM ----------



Somehow there is the smell of contradiction that niggles at me here. If there are controlled experiments, and if they give us "a view from nowhere" (objectivity?) and if, therefore they (the controlled experiments) "cannot be done", then how come there are controlled experiments? Something here is not kosher. I mean, either there are controlled experiments, or controlled experiments cannot be done. There cannot be controlled experiments that cannot be done. Or have you lost your faith in logic along with your faith in objectivity?

Trying to philosophize without logic is like trying to row a boat without oars.

i'm not a big scientist, sorry. I've never heard of epistemology. It's intersting. I beleive Bertrad Russell touched the subject.

Well, you certainly don't have to be a scientist to see that science has progressed.

innovations have been found but in some instances we are backtracking. When a future was once seen as machines doing everything for us, it was being realised up until humans decided that it would be better to integrate human interaction with technology and, in a sense, backtrack, making them the new labor tools of our era. I was also referring to the anatomy of the eye and its interaction with light when i replied.

Would you mind answering my question in post #164?

i would tell them it's red. its simple supposition that has been accepted on a large scale and i'm sure no one here would say it's black or colorless. That would seem ridiculous. I'm going to start doing that though. :cool:

So, without light, the property of an object is black

But you just said:



So, if you believed the color of the car was now black, why would you lie to your friend?

What the car's property is and what the car is perceived as by the general human eye are two different things.

In the dark it's black.

They could be two different things. For instance, if you had dark sunglasses on, or you had some sort of vision impairment. But, as we all know, we more than often see things normally.



Very interesting. But it's not black, you just admitted so, didn't you? You would tell your friend it's red in the light, but that it's black in the dark? Or would you just tell your friend that the new car you bought was red? Of course you would tell your friend that the car is red, Brian. And this is because that is the property of the car.

Again, this is why i assert that to the general human eye, it is red.

I'm glad that you assert that. And you'd be right. And that's what we mean when we say that the color of the car is red. That a normal observer, under normal conditions, would see the car as red. That's all. No need to make this matter any more complicated.

Oh really? Care to refer me to a published scientific journal which states explicitly that the world does not exist with out an observer? Thanks.

You weren't actually trying to convince people science hasn't contributed much with this sentence, were you? You say "put some robots in space" so nonchalantly, it's almost funny. Not to mention, this is coming from a guy who drives to work everyday in his 6-cylinder internal combustion engine-driven car, cooks his food in a microwave, and types to online communities on his semiconductor-powered computer. Give me a break.

That a normal observer, under normal conditions, would see the car as red. That's all. No need to make this matter any more complicated.

You are right, that is as simple as you can make it. A normal observer would see the car as red, implying that it is the observer that the redness is dependent upon, not the car.