Yes, I think it is. This shit’s complicated and no mistake.
Not all that complicated, really. I’d say this. It’s one thing to say that people have differing conceptions of reality, and that we can only perceive reality through the ultimately uncertain lens of our consciousness. But we certainly make efforts to judge what is real in many ways. We simply could not survive long without doing so, and we couldn’t have a meaningful discussion such as this one, as Andrew notes. No one person gets the make the final claim about what is real, but we can try to confirm things through objective analysis, and we can try to agree on other things.
We may not find out the ultimate truths of the universe that way, but at least we’ll be less likely to be hit by a bus 
2 Likes
Not really. It’s about observing and measuring physical phenomena, devising hypotheses to explain the phenomena, testing the hypotheses with experiments and using the results to propose or modify theories. The goal is to come up with theories that correspond most closely with observed phenomena.
No, it’s a theory, thus “theory of relativity.”
Again, it’s a theory, not truth.
In mathematics, an axiom is a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it.
In which case, the OP shouldn’t be questioned about the legitimacy of their gender identity. Yes?
There is no absolute truth…at least that we know about.
Yes and no. 
“Exist” can be a very subjective term.
isnt this just a half ass way of saying the goal is to find truths like natural laws that explains things? if we can only grasp at what is true, and find theories that are just close to explaining thing…it would seem like a huge waste of time.
Scientist actually treat it as a law, it has come into question from time to time. Because it was originally a theory, thus called a “theory of relativity” all observable and repeatable testing has proven it true. Although some would argue how do we know it’s true because we basically use the theory of relativity to prove its true.
that’s a self refuting statement. You just stated an absolute truth.
1 Like
I don’t think that follows, no. Are you saying that what I said means that any idea people have about their gender is necessarily correct? That’s what it sounds like.
I’m not sure what you mean. It does seem that by using human perception, we can reliably and regularly verify that certain things exist, would you agree?
Now we’re in the realm of philosophy, not science. But a self-refuting statement isn’t an absolute truth anyway.
why do you assume they are mutually exclusive. Philosophy often uses science to prove it’s point actually, I would even say philosophy has improved we discovered more through science.
And I would even say science and philosophy need each other. I like what Dr. Haro wrote. knowledge must be grounded on
natural science. Questions such as, “what is the nature of physical reality”, “what are the things
that are really out there in the world?” are questions that used to be within the domain of
philosophy, but are now part of science.
Also, I love this video on what if Einstein was wrong by Dr. Kaku.
You’re kind of making my point for me. In science, a law is just a statement based on observable phenomena. The theory of relativity was and still is a theory. It’s a good theory, but may well be discarded when a better theory (not a “truer” theory) comes along.
sure, we are always questioning things to basically find out what is true. But questioning doesn’t make it true, or else thinking it’s true or that reality is different for everyone would cause people who question gravity to basically all fall to their deaths.
Yes, I would agree. And human perception is, by nature, subjective. So the “existence” of those things “reliably and regularly verified” by human perception is, of course, subjective.
but what good is a theory if it isn’t true? It’s not like with each theory we try to find what is truer, we try to find what is true. We only basically call it the theory of relativity because it was originally coined as that. saying Law of relativity just hasn’t catch on. So are you saying relativity isn’t true? I’m ok with you saying relativity isn’t true or may not be true. But it would still beg the question of what is then true?
I don’t see why that matters for what we’re talking about here. Please look at it this way. What about a bus coming down the street? Should we consider that to be a subjective phantasm, or can we accept that it reflects some aspect of reality which is independent of our perception?
I want some of what you been smoking.
Just drinking my Carrefour herbal tea 
I still think this disagreement is the root of why we disagree here. You seem to have come to the conclusion that science is separated from philosophy, but may I point out that would be a philosophy of science.
Newton himself called himself a natural philosopher, his book stating gravity and basically founded calculus was called Philosophie Naturalis Principia Mathematica.
I already explained that above.
Science has nothing to say on whether the theory of relativity is true or not, just how well it fits with observable phenomena. In science, a theory can never be proved to be true, only discarded when it’s no longer useful.
1 Like