I appreciate you trying to reach out and engage and I am happy to engage. The point is to trail blaze, and not be myopic. I do not have to experience drugs or alcohol to know of their negative effects.Also, this is not such an outlandish idea that it only comes up in drug culture. On the other hand, realism is outside of our minds. Don't we have to go out on a limb and be idealists for this to happen?" Objective idealism is a form of realism. That's an interesting take, and gives me a lot to think about. 54 posts in this topic. Keep in your memory banks of your brain.So, do you want to speak fo evils and goodness of your religion? This mechanism is strong enough to answer questions about the creation, the flood and any other question. I hope that makes sense.I will get to your last question later. -- Not necessarily true, because this denies learning by observation. You are just making up that this is being argued. There is no objective existence of anything, thus solving the problem of why existence exists. Ontological realism claims that at least a part of reality is ontologically independent of human minds. Modern realism has various forms such as, scientific, sociopolitical, aesthetic, epistemological (the study or a theory of the nature and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and validity) and moral realism. Honestly, LDS is much bigger and much more mellow than what you have expressed.By the way, Godel was not a very happy fellow. In the talk by Truman G. Madsen, that I mentioned above, he lists five ways that encompass just about everything you might find in epistemology. I could elaborate on this but it will generate so many definitional issues arising from language and the way of life. 2+2 = 4, requires one to understand what 2 is! I have known of philosophers and others who have said as much, but I have never actually met a real person who would say it. I will spare you: you can hide behind Godel's incompleteness. I don't know... the divide between the Platonic and Aristotelian views is something I am just starting to consider. "Ah, I agree this all should be questioned. This verification happens through a rational, logical discourse, which of necessity cannot happen until those involved have had similar experiences on which to base their conversation. JS,You have a ficticious set containing all things that are true, but have no way to verify independently the truthiness! I think LDS guys would run faster than a speeding photon!Did you check with your poppy? QL42,Youu have engaged in Clinton type arguments. There are many different forms of relativism, with a great deal of variation in scope and differing degrees of controversy among them. -- No! Epistemological idealism is a subjectivist position in epistemology that holds that what one knows about an object exists only in one's mind. The coauthors of this blog can correct me if I'm wrong.Now, I will admit it there seems to be something about LDS culture where we enjoy speculating about all kinds of stuff. As such, it is a container for both indirect realism and idealism. (You should write more posts like this!) Otherwise it is cold fusion. But what does that actually mean? "To believe without personal knowledge (or experience) is religion." Jared,I think you are reading way more than I intended.I do not consider any faith delusional, and I look forward to this spring to provide nice cold water bottles to two mormon youths. Epistemological Realism vs. Epistemological Idealism Sign in to follow this . detail ontological, epistemological, methodological, and etiological postu-lates of metatheories that scholars and researchers deploy (for the most part, unknowingly) in social research, namely positivism, postmodernism, and critical realism. Is something being vital to science the measure of something's worth.This sounds a little myopic.Also, notice you have not defined religion. From my understanding, and it depends on how you define what a TOE is, but if if everything really means everything that is ever observable (which is the definition most physicists are aiming for), I think Godel implies we are screwed. It will also allow a glimpse of the role of his ontology in refuting skepticism. The traditional concept of knowledge is a justified true belief. :)First, let's make this easy: do you believe that there is anything that is true? Through this discourse we can verify, through a process of "objective checks and balances" that both of our experiences are valid (or not valid). Ancient1,"we must try to bring an order in this"Okay, the set of all things that are true. Look at all the prophetic writings and you will find brimstones and hell for those who do not believe! According to René Descartes, the only thing that can be known is whatever is going on in our … ").Furthermore, an objective world view would be in direct opposition to the idea of torture, as it would be impossible to force, through torture or other means, a particular view, opinion or world view. His theorem says that no sufficiently complex system of logic can prove all true statements not that the set of all things that are true is flawed.So, you are free to try again. John,Did you read definition of religion? Basically, you are saying that you can impose your experience on others, as it is your belief that your experience is the pinnacle and rest do not matter. It is an interaction between spirit(s) and at this time we cannot measure or directly observe that (see D&C 131:7). After all the trouble we went through! Idealism and Realism are two diverse concepts that are commonly used in various areas of life, like philosophy, politics or epistemology. Or are you waiting for me to explain something else so that you can launch into criticism?I agree we need to ask tough questions but we need to be more than critics. Ancient1, I think the problem here is that we aren't recognizing the difference between "like-minded people" and like-experienced people. Another exceptionally important talk on LDS epistemology was given by Elder Dallin H. Oaks in the October 2010 Church Conference.raedyohed: "If I understand correctly an epistemological realist is limited to tools whereby the data is separate from the observer's experience." My gut feel is that orangutans probably do better experimental science than many here.My position has been a scientist does not need label like religion, male etc., and a person of faith does not need science as crutches to walk on the path. There is another strain in contemporary anti-realism, which comes from Hilary Putnam, and which is due to worries Idealism vs Realism in Education There are five basic philosophies of education namely idealism, realism, perennialism, experimentalism and existentialism.Idealism is based on the view that students should be taught wisdom through the study of literature, history, philosophy, and religion. The problem comes from the nature of intuition and inspiration. Positivist theories aim to replicate the methods of the natural sciences by analysing the impact of material forces. The terms “idealism” and “idealist” are by nomeans used only within philosophy; they are used in many everydaycontexts as well. "He said, "before I can claim experience with God in a rational way, it must be independently verified by the personal experiences of others. I think QL42's rationale approaches that. I will go in order:jmb275: "I think you're talking about the plausibility of believing/knowing things outside of the current scientific method framed in various schools of philosophy." Metaphysical realism, this book has repeatedly noted, is a claim to know the way the world is, more precisely to know the mind … Idealism as a philosophy came under heavy attack in the West at the turn of the 20th century. This is a process that is repeatable between other people, which adds to evidence for or against our knowledge.Essentially all he said is that two people cannot both talk about how fun Disneyland is without both having actually experienced Disneyland personally. There is no weapon, argument or brainwashing that can force anyone to learn or know anything (cf. The best we can do is speak from experience and explain what we know and invite others to have the same experience. Penrose On Whether A Platonic Objectivity Can Exist Independent of Human Minds. From that and many other statements I am reading on the matter lead me to believe that a full TOE is shot down by Godel. But, I think peer review has become the standard by which we measure "good" science as for all practical purposes it is the best we can do. Thus it would be more logical to conclude that torture is used for political "conversion" rather than religious "conversion". Maybe two strict realists who don't have any data in common can't have a meaningful dialogue, but two idealists who are able to reason along the same lines can. As such, it is a container for both indirect realism and idealism. Ancient1 you are avoiding it because you know that you can't define it in any way to where your claims will hold water. While what I have written here deals with three different "ways of knowing", there are more. Or is this another empty claim made with nothing to back it up? In the above dramatization, ancient1 being the one calming dogs are smarter than humans is under the burden to define what he means, not me.But, just like in real life, the ancient1 in the story makes a claim without providing the necessary information needed to weigh the claim and then calls me a "know-it-all" because I would like to know where he is coming from. More I am driving at the idea that the scientific method and my religion are not mutually exclusive, and that not only are the not inherently in conflict but can (and at some point, must) be reconciled. The act of proselytizing has the following as it's ultimate goal, as QL42 articulated: "If I believe God is speaking to me, then others must be able to verify whether or not it is true through the exact same mechanism." This view is compatible with physicalism (eliminative and reductive materialism), emergent materialism, and dualism, and even objective idealism, but incompatible with subjective idealism (solipsism, phenomenalism). The point is to play it safe, never step outside your comfort zone, and never offend anyone. Well, you as a person, as a spirit, it was not ; however, you took it as if it is a personal attack, and that is after nearly 50 comments worth of dialog! epistemology metaphysics philosophy-of-mind history-of-philosophy idealism. Here is one: to do science you do not need religion. Some have argued, though, that Plato nevertheless also held to a position similar to Immanuel Kant's Transcendental Idealism. To use an analogy that might make sense, realism would be like a theory of physics that accepts conservation of energy, and idealism would be like a theory that does not accept that conservation of energy. You are stuck on peer review, so I will take it one step further. It is important to note that there are three main strands in Hegel’s idealism, an epistemological strand, an ontological strand, and a moral strand. After all, the mind is our only tool for understanding that world, and therefore all of our perceptions and understandings will be constrained by the structure of the mind. Musicians also practice so that they have the experience. For that singular focus, you have to study eastern faiths (not religions), mostly of Indian subcontinent. But I will say this, most people voicing opinions on the internet are not doing science at a high enough quality to get through the peer review process. In that case I can see how it would be hard to understand how intuition can be objective since it is in effect a manifestation of knowledge that is difficult (at best) or impossible (at worst) to trace. This is to say that a literal interpretation of LDS scripture would be perfectly consistent with an old earth, and these ideas can be taught (and have!) -- Yes, to a point. -- While some religious people have used torture in advancing their religions, those examples are an extreme minority, and usually accompany the spread of political influence. They are idealism, realism, pragmatism (sometimes called experientialism), and existentialism. Truth seems to be a quite obvious criterion—does the belief in … This view is compatible with physicalism (eliminative and reductive materialism), emergent materialism, and dualism, and even objective idealism, but incompatible with subjective idealism (solipsism, phenomenalism). We just have to figure out a way to do so with an elevated level of discourse. Further, you have fallen to lowest level of argument, and that is selective deconstruction, at which you fail miserably.Just as objective world view holder of yours, a megalomaniac demands that people follow. Ontological realism is a term best applied to theories that are realist regarding what there is, where ‘what there is’ (or the relevant ontology) is usually specified previous to or in conjunction with the realism regarding it. I consider your act of deletion as a demonstration of cowardliness of spirit; yet, you did feel compelled to explain your action, and that makes me happy.Further you offered me to let you know others comments I find as attack. Types of idealist epistemology can be differentiated with respect to incompatible forms of realism. Ancient1,Okay, I see you may have issues with the peer review process and so I will humor you and ask: what would be a better "litmus test" that we can use to decide if science is being to contaminated by personal bias/beliefs than the traditional peer review process? Meaning these concepts are opposing approaches about … Idealism is the view that things exist only as ideas, with no reality as material objects outside of the mind. -- I would think that an objective world view would demand that its adherents proselytize, as it would be a necessary step in the verification process. -- I never said that we were "not able to articulate" our knowledge, I just said that our words alone cannot convey to someone an experience with the Divine. Basically, you are saying that you can impose your experience on others, as it is your belief that your experience is the pinnacle and rest do not matter. Things exist only in relation to something (anything) else. This mechanism I am referring to is the same thing that you mentioned as giving a "balance [to] those religious tendencies". I bet you surely will wet your pants if you were to go a kiddie playyard and try to do a swing with a banana in your hand!Why don't you define science as you seem to be a know-it-all.