hopeful skeptic said:
*sigh*
No, sir, there isn't a consensual reality. There is reality, which is supported by evidence. Consensus has nothing to do with reality, or with truth. If 100 people are standing in a room and 99 of them proclaim that all bunny rabbits are blue, and only one person stands in opposition to them with demonstrable evidence at his side, he is correct and they are wrong.
Hi, you post a lot of good points. I've reconsidered my position regarding the state of the media and its exposure of paranormal subects. I probably should've mentioned the fact that I haven't owned a television for the last 6 years. I'm kind of anti-TV, so I might be operating on assumptions as far as contemporary culture goes.
But I quoted the above section of your response because it's the only part I really disagree with. I still happen to think that there is in fact a consensual reality, based upon the nature of "evidence".
I do happen to believe that there is an objective reality underlying everything. But notice that even in your example, the objective reality is that the rabbit is not blue, but the consensual reality is that it IS blue. What if that remaining 1% also thought the rabbit was blue? What if these people violently defended this "fact" so that it was not questioned? Then the "objective reality" becomes rather useless eh? Your argument against my statement contains something that supports my statement.
Unless I'm also out of the loop regarding this particular pop culture item, the majority of people in the world agree that the earth is largely filled with magma. Where there is liquid magma there can be no hollow cavities, I think you knew that this was my point so I'm not sure why you even argued this point - unless it's semantics (ie, "carlsbad cavern is a hollow cavity"). Though we have not drilled more than 20 miles into the crust of our earth, the entire composition of our earth is consensually agreed upon. The specific elements are up for debate, but the fundamental concept cannot be challenged: there are no hollow cavities inside the earth. And by hollow cavities, I mean huge hollow cavities large enough to support civilizations of humans or other beings who might be sharing this earth with us.
Geologists have "evidence" that the earth is composed of what they say it is composed of, but there is also "evidence" that the interior of the earth is NOT composed of what they say it is composed of (ie, deep quakes).
You seem like a smart guy and I would guess that you already know this stuff, which is why I can't figure out why you're arguing this point about consensual reality.
A guy goes to school, he learns fundamental information about our world from a BOOK. This information he accepts as true, he has not experienced it first-hand but still he accepts it for no other reason than the fact that it is issuing from a source of authority. Hey if it was false then it would have been changed by now, right?
Then he goes into his chosen field. Specific areas of his field are considered territory for question, but the fundmentals are considered unquestionable. You can argue the mechanisms of evolution by natural selection, but not evolution itself. If you are an established scientist in your field and you DO question the fundamentals, then you are a maverick and receive ridicule (ie, Rupert Sheldrake).
In fact, evolution is a subject I really enjoy and it's a good example. Evolutionists have the "evidence" to support their theories, and I've read them. They're solid. Those scientists (not creationists) countering evolution also have "evidence" supporting their theories and those are solid as well. No one has SEEN a man evolve from a monkey and so people pick their side of the argument based upon what the authority figures tell them, or whichever appeals to them.
This whole scenario, in all branches of knowledge, leads to a consensual reality, a model of the world that is supported by nothing other than mutual agreement and books. And it is not allowed to be questioned because important people have staked their reputation upon it.
By saying all this stuff, I'm not disregarding evidence as a useless thing to pursue. I am a seeker of evidence myself, this is only to support the idea of a consensual reality overlaying what I hope is an objective reality.
And I can do no more than hope becase after all, in the end there is not a single piece of evidence in all the world outside of our *subjective* mechanisms of perception.
