Concensus reality

Topic's posts
Posts in total: 72
Is it the only valid reality?

As soon as we clear up what 'consensus', 'valid' and, indeed, 'reality' mean we can get down to the real issue!
--> @janesix
I would say that objective reality is the only true reality.

The consensus can be wrong.
--> @keithprosser
That's gonna take a while
--> @Stronn
I would say that objective reality is the only true reality.
Good luck identifying something that is "independent of observation".
--> @Stronn
How do you know what objective reality is?
Maybe
--> @janesix
Is it the only valid reality?
No. Logically, consensus and validity are not intertwined.
--> @Athias
I agree. But I'm not sure why.
--> @Athias
No. Logically, consensus and validity are not intertwined. 
If your aim requires cooperation with other humans, then (scientific and moral) consensus is a prerequisite goal.
--> @janesix, @3RU7AL
@janesix:

I agree. But I'm not sure why.
Consensus informs only itself, i.e. there are however many people who agree to or share this belief/experience. Any other conclusions deduced from those parameters would lack sound reason.

If your aim requires cooperation with other humans, then (scientific and moral) consensus is a prerequisite goal.
Inductively, yes. Deductively, no. Considering that the question proposed by janesix is "Is [consensus reality] the only valid reality?" the logic of which we speak is deductive.

Also explain how consensus is a requisite for Science.

--> @Athias
Also explain how consensus is a requisite for Science. 
A key component of the scientific method is peer review (consensus).
--> @3RU7AL

A key component of the scientific method is peer review (consensus).
Peer review is not a key component in the scientific method. It's a standard of publishing data in academia.
--> @Athias
Peer review is not a key component in the scientific method. It's a standard of publishing data in academia.
If your "discovery" or "findings" or "results" are not duplicatable, then they are not considered valid.
--> @3RU7AL
If your "discovery" or "findings" or "results" are not duplicatable, then they are not considered valid.
True. But that's neither "peer review" nor "consensus." That's reproducibility/replication of results.

--> @Athias
True. But that's neither "peer review" nor "consensus." That's reproducibility/replication of results. 
You can't validate your own science.

Any replication (by not yourself) is de facto "peer review" and multiple "peer reviews" are prerequisite for "scientific consensus". [LINK]
--> @3RU7AL
You can't validate your own science.

Any replication (by not yourself) is de facto "peer review"

Yes, but that's not "consensus." Having results replicated (by someone other than oneself) provides a control. It's not "consensus" that validates the result.
--> @Athias
Yes, but that's not "consensus." Having results replicated (by someone other than oneself) provides a control. It's not "consensus" that validates the result. 
Please disentangle corroborate and consensus.
--> @3RU7AL
Please disentangle corroborate and consensus.
I never entangled them. Reproducing/replicating the results of any experiment is intended to reduce as many variables as possible/necessary and isolate the results. Whether this happens does not depend on "consensus." Consensus provides only a standard for publishing data. One is a method (replication,) the other is regulation (consensus.)

--> @janesix
How do you know what objective reality is?

'Knowledge of objective reality' is a perpetual aspiration!   Currently science is predicated on the assumption that an objective reality exists, and that knowlege of it can be gained by rational means.  We feel we are closer to understanding (or 'knowing') reality than were 100 years ago - and we expect to be even closer in another 100 years.   But I suspect most scientists don't think we will ever know all of reality - all we can do is carry on chipping away at it.



--> @3RU7AL, @Athias
J6 referred to 'consensus reality' - I am not sure peer review is relevant!

I doubt that 'consensus' is the best word for what she meant, but it's not the worst either.  I'd assume she intended to refer to the 'apparent universe', in which matter interacts according to physical laws, some of which we have good approximations of.   It's a reality where time goes inexorably in one direction, from past to future and where there are 3 significant dimensions of space.   It's a reality where the laws of thermodynamics apply, causes precede their effect, and where actual ininities and paradoxes don't exist.

I am not saying any of that is 'true of reality', but it describes the reality that most people believe in - which I think is a good reason to accept calling it 'consensus reality'.








--> @Athias
Please disentangle corroborate and consensus.
I never entangled them. Reproducing/replicating the results of any experiment is intended to reduce as many variables as possible/necessary and isolate the results. Whether this happens does not depend on "consensus." Consensus provides only a standard for publishing data. One is a method (replication,) the other is regulation (consensus.)
Corroboration is de facto consensus.
--> @3RU7AL
I didn't say that objective reality was always knowable.
--> @Stronn
I didn't say that objective reality was always knowable.
Is it even sometimes knowable?
--> @janesix
No one knows for sure what objective reality is. We can only make reasonable estimates based on our senses and past experience.

That's not to suggest that all methods are equal at estimating reality. Some methods obviously work better than others.