The point is to trail blaze, and not be myopic. The reality is it is genuinely harder to be a thinker than a criticizer. The point is to trail blaze, and not be myopic. Quantumleap42,Thank you for writing this and like Cartesian said, I think you have demonstrated a mature understanding of philosophy. Realists believe that everything exists in a reality independent of the observer. Each will be explained shortly. This is made much easier when we have shared experiences, hence the demand to proselytize. I appreciate you trying to reach out and engage and I am happy to engage. It is opposed to epistemological realism. Abstract . Where are you failing to understand about this definition?" 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. I am happy and proud to be a scientist, without any religious labels. … But what does that actually mean? I hate to go on limb, but, a similar argument exists in drug culture (I know because I refused to smoke grass), I can not speak of the evils or goodness unless I have experienced it! Essentially my argument is that as all other things (ways of knowing) appear to work in an objective manner, it would make sense that the rest (the part we don't understand) would work under the same principles. As nouns the difference between relativism and idealism is that relativism is (uncountable|philosophy) the theory, especially in ethics or aesthetics, that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them while idealism is the property of a person of having high ideals that are usually unrealizable or at odds with practical life. This should, ideally, prevent the type of problems you bring up. Now consider your Sunday School classes on these topics. Why not comment that drinking a Jamba Juice isn't needed to do science as that observation is as relevant to what is being discussed as well. All of this has been rattling around inside my head for a few years, and just recently, like in the last 6-12 months I've been starting to coherently express some of these same thoughts. 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. This is the version of epistemological idealism which interested Ludwig Boltzmann; it had roots in the positivism of Ernst Mach This is the point of Wittgenstein's Private Language Argument.So the issue that you are bringing up is actually the distinction between Platonic rationalism and Aristotelian empiricism. There is no verification, nor there is any process of verification for the assurance, and QL42 should be squirming by such lack of objectivism.Peer review is as good as the composition of the peer group. Why don’t we have cookie-cutter physicists all over the world, heck, we have been imparting “the experiences” for a long time. Look at all the prophetic writings and you will find brimstones and hell for those who do not believe! On one hand I want to help but on the other hand the concept is so trivial it is hard to not sound condescending. Are you all engaged in subverting science so that it meets LDS requirements? They're never going to do that. Although it is sometimes employed to argue in favor of metaphysical idealism, in principle epistemological idealism makes no claim about whether sense data are grounded in reality. 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. Otherwise it is cold fusion. There is no weapon, argument or brainwashing that can force anyone to learn or know anything (cf. Teachers who follow idealism guide the students to realize their intellectual potential (Ornstein, Levine, Gutek, 2011, p. 172). Epistemological idealism, of which the Kantian scholar Norman Kemp Smith’s Prolegomena to an Idealist Theory of Knowledge (1924) is an excellent example, covers all idealistic theories of epistemology, or knowledge. This is the basis of our "intuition". Ancient1,Believe it or not I really like you which is why I have let the personal attacks slide after having already told you that I will censor such comments. This chapter shows that idealism is better understood as a series of approaches to knowledge related more in name than in specific epistemological doctrine. OK, now for my responses. That's called a strawman by the way. I would think an epistemological realist's tools would be limited to things such as parsimony, probabilistic hypotheses, inference, etc. That is an idea that I do not find anywhere else in any religion, that in order for there to be the Divine there must be separate beings to verify the truth of the Divine. In the simplest sense epistemological realism is the idea that observable characteristics exist in the observed object, independent of the observer. Ancient1 - That's an interesting question, I think mostly stemming from the notion that meaningful discourse cannot take place unless the discussants "separately have personal experiences with God" then." My point is, when it comes to real science I can assure you it is being done correctly around here and no part of being LDS prevents this. Knowledge and experience cannot be transfered forcibly, or imposed on others. Ideas as to what there is can range from numbers to tables, so realism regarding a given ontology may seem more or less appealing or acceptable depending on the intuitions and beliefs one might already have about the reality of the sorts of things in that ontology. You have read a lot and comprehended nothing. Likewise epistemological idealism is the idea that the characteristics exist in the mind of the observer independent of the object. Idealism vs. Realism. Anybody else find it funny this ancient1 person just asserts she is right without any proof? These four general frameworks provide the root or base from which the various educational philosophies are derived. Idealism vs. Realism. More precisely, would you select an LDS as a PhD candidate or a fellow from Africa who practiced rather unusual faith, both smart, and African more so, as he/she has seen world from different perspective than LDS views? Idealists reject the idea that objects are independent of our minds. Idealism and Realism relate to teaching and student learning because teachers tend to teach through an idealist’s perspective verses a realist’s perspective. Hence the comments of Hawking I alluded to.The Wikipedia article on theory of everything discusses Godel's theorem with some back and forth and concludes: "Analogously, it may (or may not) be possible to completely state the underlying rules of physics with a finite number of well-defined laws, but there is little doubt that there are questions about the behavior of physical systems which are formally undecidable on the basis of those underlying laws." Ancient1 you are avoiding it because you know that you can't define it in any way to where your claims will hold water. realist epistemology must be ontological; and of course all types of knowledge-ontological, ethical, theological, and other types of philosophical knowledge, as well as non-philosophical types of knowledge-must be realist if realism is demonstrated to be true. Epistemological idealism suggests that everything we experience and know is of a mental nature—sense data in philosophical jargon. Ancient1,You are right, my claim is only as strong as the peer review process which I agree is flawed. Not any simpler or more complex than that. I need to go read the OP a couple more times! JS,You may be sincere in your assurance but it is really an empty promise. It is really cool! He and I both independently said much the same thing though. I have chosen for my ontology, critical realism, and for my epistemology, social constructionism. John,So you run! Although it is sometimes employed to argue in favor of metaphysical idealism, in principle epistemological idealism makes no claim about whether sense data are grounded in reality. What does it mean to add? 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!) Look, I would like you to stick around since you present an alternative view which I appreciate but I do have to limit the level of personal attacks.All the most respected science venues will flat out reject papers if they contain blatant personal attacks. -- Not necessarily true, because this denies learning by observation. Anything that can (virtually) be objectified, will do: purity of race is a powerful motivator; also, hatred of others’ faith works as well.Now a bit more on your extensive write up: it defines western philosophy, which is fundamentally a war of dual aspects of our singular reality. Don't ever take any risks.Why, we built this nice cage just for you, I am saddened you dare to step out of it. Epistemological idealism suggests that everything we experience and know is of a mental nature—sense data in philosophical jargon. In order for us to be able to differentiate between idealism and realism, we must first have a thorough understanding of the two terms. Ancient1, I think the problem here is that we aren't recognizing the difference between "like-minded people" and like-experienced people. As I've said on a previous post. -- This is perhaps the strongest argument against Platonic rationalism. 1. 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. Ancient1,"we must try to bring an order in this"Okay, the set of all things that are true. Knowledge and Truth (Epistemology) As to knowledge, idealism holds that knowledge is man thinking the thoughts and purposes of this eternal and spiritual reality as they are embodied in our world of fact. You're trying to justify a belief in God (which is great). In it he mentions some ideas that are important to LDS theology (but at the same time not exclusively LDS doctrine). Moving . Ancient1 so what? Epistemological Realism Francis H. Parker I M ... essay, which is that one of the standard arguments for idealism and against realism is invalid. QL42,I find the last paragraph of your post troubling. Thank you all for your comments and insights, hopefully I can help alleviate any concerns or questions that people have. But there was a lecture given by Truman G. Madsen (at the time he was the Chair of the Philosophy Department at BYU) in which he addresses this exact question. Aesthetic idealism is devoted to philosophical theories of beauty in nature and in all forms of art. IR theories can be roughly divided into one of two epistemological camps: "positivist" and "post-positivist". You are stuck on peer review, so I will take it one step further. If somehow, one crosses that bridge, how does one add? In his work, Schopenhauer accepts Kant’s argument that space, time and casualty are … Some have argued, though, that Plato nevertheless also held to a position similar to Immanuel Kant's Transcendental Idealism. It’s often contrasted with pragmatist or realist, i.e. So, what do you think? Don't we have to go out on a limb and be idealists for this to happen? "Epistemological realism" is widely used today as I quote from the wikipedia article. In his work, Schopenhauer accepts Kant’s argument that space, time and casualty are … 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. Even within idealism, there are many sub categories such as classical idealism, objective idealism, subjective idealism, metaphysical idealism, epistemological idealism, absolute idealism, practical idealism, actual idealism, etc. I'm sure you cannot point to one serious study showing science manipulation for religious reasons is significant.In fact, the statement "we all have heard of data manipulation to meet the beliefs of scientists" I would say is bad science because something as extreme as this has the burden of needing to be backed by some data.