That’s not what I wrote. I wrote “2000+ years of scholars successfully experimenting the functioning of the universe proves that the universe is real”, it’s that which validate materialism, not materialism which proves that.
He’s not claiming that the universe isn’t real and independent of the sense, he’s saying that OP’s argument is garbage, which is true. If we’re going to be materialists, we need to actually approach arguments understanding opposing positions or at least not presume to understand when we’ve clearly not even read the introduction to the most basic works on the topic.
The world and it’s laws are knowable and can be disclosed through practice and experimentation, that is a basic principle of materialism. OP claims experiments do not prove things are real, that is a straight up rejection of materialism thought.
What is real is rational, what is rational is real.
Aside from what MFC responded with, which is also correct, what experimentation deals with is the correlation between phenomena. It has no bearing on noumena, nor does it purport to. Remember, a number of these idealists had serious involvement in the sciences, e.g. Kant was an astronomer in addition to everything else, and he wasn’t rejecting his own field, he was talking about issues that are separate from his field.
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific process. Experimentation can’t prove things. That’s just not how it works. The very best a scientific investigation can do is provide evidence to support or not support a particular interpretation of the truth.
That’s not what I wrote. I wrote “2000+ years of scholars successfully experimenting the functioning of the universe proves that the universe is real”, it’s that which validate materialism, not materialism which proves that.
OK, but experimenting also doesn’t prove the universe (as we know it) is real
How can mirrors be real if our eyes aren’t real?
bruh
He’s not claiming that the universe isn’t real and independent of the sense, he’s saying that OP’s argument is garbage, which is true. If we’re going to be materialists, we need to actually approach arguments understanding opposing positions or at least not presume to understand when we’ve clearly not even read the introduction to the most basic works on the topic.
The world and it’s laws are knowable and can be disclosed through practice and experimentation, that is a basic principle of materialism. OP claims experiments do not prove things are real, that is a straight up rejection of materialism thought.
Aside from what MFC responded with, which is also correct, what experimentation deals with is the correlation between phenomena. It has no bearing on noumena, nor does it purport to. Remember, a number of these idealists had serious involvement in the sciences, e.g. Kant was an astronomer in addition to everything else, and he wasn’t rejecting his own field, he was talking about issues that are separate from his field.
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific process. Experimentation can’t prove things. That’s just not how it works. The very best a scientific investigation can do is provide evidence to support or not support a particular interpretation of the truth.