Planck, one quotation
- Thread starter ronan
- Start date
At least science has evidence going for it, independent of any particular observer.
OK, do you think consciousness directly perceives the existence of external reality without directly perceiving external reality ?-ronan said:
And do you find direct perception of the existence of something - external reality, say, whatever that means - to be akin to faith ?
An what do you think Planck meant by "external" ? External to what ?
I would say that we can perceive the existence of a external reality without perceiving reality itself (which could be inaccessible by our perceptions).
But here Planck seems to say that this direct perception of an external reality is an act of faith like in religion the perception of the existence of god is an act of faith.
it is maybe more clear when he says:
he want to say that science belief in the existence of a external reality is like religious belief in an external god.
iceaura you bring a good question here about externality.
I would say that here he means external to our perceptions.
That still feels strange.
Maybe he wanted to say external as behind our perceptions
this makes more sense for me.
and thus his text could be restated this way:
I agree that "the direct perception of the existence of something" is a little bit strange
but according to what is say afterward about faith It could be restated this way:
Maybe I completely modify what Planck was trying to say but the problem is to know we have to ask Planck himself, unfortunately this is impossible,
so let's take this interpretation and ask whether it makes sense.
If you think that there is another interpretation that makes sense, please share it.
But here Planck seems to say that this direct perception of an external reality is an act of faith like in religion the perception of the existence of god is an act of faith.
it is maybe more clear when he says:
he want to say that science belief in the existence of a external reality is like religious belief in an external god.
iceaura you bring a good question here about externality.
I would say that here he means external to our perceptions.
That still feels strange.
Maybe he wanted to say external as behind our perceptions
this makes more sense for me.
and thus his text could be restated this way:
I agree that "the direct perception of the existence of something" is a little bit strange
but according to what is say afterward about faith It could be restated this way:
Maybe I completely modify what Planck was trying to say but the problem is to know we have to ask Planck himself, unfortunately this is impossible,
so let's take this interpretation and ask whether it makes sense.
If you think that there is another interpretation that makes sense, please share it.
Most of science in it's early stages is faith based assumption, but it differs from religious faith, by an infinitesimal decree, sciences based faith is collated by an abundance of facts.
In his statement it seems Planck, like most probably misunderstood science theory.
In his statement it seems Planck, like most probably misunderstood science theory.
This sounds pretty silly coming from such an apparently smart guy. It's not faith, it's a foundational (the foundational) axiom of existence. All things including science and religion stem from it. Describing the "belief" in reality as faith is a lame and transparent strawman argument designed to boost religion's (or degrade science's?) credibility.
You can call an acceptance of reality as "real" a leap of faith if you want, but by definition, reality is real. It in no way strains the intellect to begin with an axiom such as "reality is the common perception of all humans of the demonstrable aspects of the cosmos".
We can all agree on the commonly observed attributes of a tree. No one can agree on even one single commonly observed attribute of god. Because there are none.
a blind person may beg to differ
so would an ant
a blind person could lodge the exact same argument against the visual appearance of a tree
guess Planck is still a smart guy after all ....
only if you take "seeing" for granted
The opposite: especially if you don't take seeing for granted.LG said:
Planck is asserting direct perception (whatever that means) of the existence of something which is not itself directly perceived in any respect. Something "external" which is directly perceived - apparently by something "internal" ? who knows - - - ?
This sentence is right:
Planck indeed assert that scientist require a direct perception of the existence of something which is not itself perceived in any respect.
"a direct perception of the existence of something" should be interpreted here as "belief in the existence of something"
No that is not what he is saying,
he does not say that the something "external" is directly perceived
but he says that its existence is directly perceived.
iceaura, I agree with you that Planck could have been clearer:
It is why I said that we should try to interpret it in a way that is understandable
you said that there is no interpretation that would be correct, here I disagree
please read my earlier post. (post #9)
If you read my post #9 you will see that I interpret external as meaning "behind our perceptions" and thus because of his use of the word faith I would restate one of his sentence this way:
Don't you agree that most scientists (if not all) are assuming the existence of a reality behind our perceptions?
It is why I said that we should try to interpret it in a way that is understandable
you said that there is no interpretation that would be correct, here I disagree
please read my earlier post. (post #9)
If you read my post #9 you will see that I interpret external as meaning "behind our perceptions" and thus because of his use of the word faith I would restate one of his sentence this way:
(taken from post #9)
Don't you agree that most scientists (if not all) are assuming the existence of a reality behind our perceptions?