0
2

[–] plemer 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

That consistency is needed for philosophical validity is fundamental, obvious, and already widely accepted.

0
1

[–] Fact_Checking_Alien [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Not if the attitudes of certain popular scientists are to be concerned?

0
1

[–] plemer 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Perhaps, but I think we can aspire here for a higher standard of dialogue here than just avoiding rudimentary errors and rehearsing generally accepted principles.

Alternately, post an example of someone (e.g., popular scientist) making the error and criticize it.

0
1

[–] bill.lee 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

For me, your argument is kind of outlining the shape of materialism. I agree with your definitions and (although hopefully this doesn't change the shape of your argument) I would place it as the intersection of art and science. What you have noted as the difference between the tangible and the intangible. I'll move toward a point I think you're making at the end: as researchers we should acknowledge that we are actually measuring the intangible--it is a measurement at one specific point in time. Clearly, some don't take that view and favor extrapolating results to grandiose meanings.

0
1

[–] Fact_Checking_Alien [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I think it is quite clear from my outline that the intangible has no possibility for accuracy beyond being internally consistent - and if it is to apply to reality then must be challenged by the consistent nature of that reality. I'm not certain of your point as I cannot understand its wording, and have rephrased mine.

It's a rather important point to make, however, regarding how many persons reject the observations of reality in favor of those grandiose constructions which are only internally consistent.

0
1

[–] bill.lee 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Sorry, misinterpreted your point on that one and maybe I'm still even missing it. I suppose I'm making the opposite point. I agree, by its nature the intangible does not possess the qualities of accuracy. However, I would argue that reality does not possess a consistent nature. So, aspects of reality can be subjectively quantified and observed but reality is naturally subjective. However, I'm not certain that you're arguing for an 'absolute' reality.