I need to go read the OP a couple more times! 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. JS,Yes, you were trying to be condescending. Scientific inquiry in religion always demonstrates charlatans leading the parade of intentional ignorants, or believers. 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. I would think an epistemological realist's tools would be limited to things such as parsimony, probabilistic hypotheses, inference, etc. I am happy and proud to be a scientist, without any religious labels. Some have argued, though, that Plato nevertheless also held to a position similar to Immanuel Kant's Transcendental Idealism. I appreciate you trying to reach out and engage and I am happy to engage. English (wikipedia idealism) Noun; The property of a person of having high ideals that are usually unrealizable or at odds with practical life. On the other hand wouldn't an idealist rely on tools that are inseparable from the experience of the observer; anecdote, interpretation, emotion and so on? (Although, if you are going to be doing good science it would be nice if you would back up your concerns with some data. Science at its core and in its history is against those ideas. epistemology metaphysics philosophy-of-mind history-of-philosophy idealism. These epistemological roots of idealism gain a foothold by virtue of certain social factors, having their origin in the division between mental and manual labor, as a result of which “consciousness is in a position to emancipate itself from the world” (Marx and Engels, Soch., 2nd ed., vol. Another exceptionally important talk on LDS epistemology was given by Elder Dallin H. Oaks in the October 2010 Church Conference.raedyohed: "If I understand correctly an epistemological realist is limited to tools whereby the data is separate from the observer's experience." Followers 1. A catholic coming to rescue of LDS guys! By the way who is nobody? What if all peers are LDS members? Positivist theories aim to replicate the methods of the natural sciences by analysing the impact of material forces. "What this means is that before two people can have a rational, logical discourse (again, those words must be interpreted in light of his entire post) they both must separately have personal experiences with God. While rationalism and empiricism may differ in their epistemological approach, they are (with a few key exceptions) ontologically the same. Don't we have to go out on a limb and be idealists for this to happen?" John,Did you read definition of religion? Did you see how a simple word - myopic - defines it? English (wikipedia idealism) Noun; ... * epistemological idealism * metaphysical idealism Related terms * idealist * idealistic * idealistically See also * realism * pragmatism * materialism * physicalism References * * Anagrams * English words suffixed with -ism. Idealism seeks to create intellectual beings and places. -- While some religious people have used torture in advancing their religions, those examples are an extreme minority, and usually accompany the spread of political influence. From my perspective, I am happy and proud to be a scientist, without any religious labels. All paths lead to bliss, sooner or later.If you are brave, you can repost my deleted comment. No, unless you gather large amounts of data from many different people and then perform a statistical analysis of it. This works because the sensations of our spirits (little "s") are what underly all of our sensations and experiences. But I will say this, most people voicing opinions on the internet are not doing science at a high enough quality to get through the peer review process. Let us assume that we crossed that bridge too, now do each 2 retain their identity? Joseph offered an interesting definition I have never heard of that ancient1 can't wrap his mind around and so tries to avoid it knowing he is stuck.Further he provides no definition of his own. 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. These assumptions would change under new knowledge and experience, but if they did then that would prove them right, and they wouldn't have to change anyway ;-). Realists think that there is a physical world out there, while idealists argue that existence is immaterial. The most influential critics of both epistemological and ontological idealism were G. E. Moore and Bertrand Russell, but its critics also included the new realists. It is an interaction between spirit(s) and at this time we cannot measure or directly observe that (see D&C 131:7). We walk a fine line trying to pander to both sides but end up primarily siding with those who believe in literal interpretations since it leads to obedience to authority.I think this is the main problem - religions perpetuate a culture based on adherence to authority, literal interpretations, and exact obedience. Can you point to one scientific achievement currently being done by orangutans that is better experimental science than that done by the people here? All you said, in a tactful way, is that religious people are delusional, thereby giving a perfect example of the point of QL42's post (i.e., you and Mormons cannot sit down and have a logical, rational discussion about God because you work from the assumption that Mormons are delusional and thus, not logical). The difference between rationalism and empiricism would be like two theories where one accepts conservation of mass and the other does not, but both accept conservation of energy. I will spare you: you can hide behind Godel's incompleteness. They typically focus on features of international relations such as state interactions, size of military forces, balance of powers etc. This is the version of epistemological idealism which interested Ludwig Boltzmann; it had roots in the positivism of Ernst Mach Epistemological realism claims that it is possible to obtain knowledge about mind‐independent reality. At its best the act of proselytizing is the act of one, who has had a singular religious experience, striving to instill in another the desire for a similar experience.But again, what I want to know is whether QL42 means to imply that processes like intuition or inspiration fit within the empirical realist's toolkit. Ancient1,You are right, good science *must* be reproducible. It is opposed to epistemological realism. Update, QL42 posted a response between when I started writing mine and when I published it. The main ontological positions are Materialism and Idealism. JS,You may be sincere in your assurance but it is really an empty promise. Idealism as a philosophy came under heavy attack in the West at the turn of the 20th century. Ancient1 you are avoiding it because you know that you can't define it in any way to where your claims will hold water. It doesn’t. There is no "brainwashing by a belief. Idealism as a philosophy came under heavy attack in the West at the turn of the 20th century. Objective idealism is a form of realism. But your question misses a major point. In thinking this way I have generally distinguished along similar lines as you've articulated here. Also, if the world is truly objective then there would be no harm in proselytizing as we would only be speaking of things as the really are (as the Charles Dickens put it, "These things are what they are, do not blame me. So we are off to a good start here. The paper begins with a brief cultural survey of events during the thirty-year period from 1960–1990 that brought many educators to break with epistemological realism and concludes with comments on the pedagogical importance of realism. Epistemological Realism and Onto-Relations . Athletes regularly practice and run plays and patterns, so that they will have experience. Ancient1,I'm not trying to be condescending, I'm trying to bring myself to believe you want to honestly understand why I think a religious scientist isn't an oxymoron. John,I do think ancient1 has deep reasons for drawing these conclusions, but I do fail to understand why he wants to spend his time attacking us. in a Sunday School class without creating undue debate or theological fights. I think all people should be proud to be scientists regardless of religious affiliation just as I think heart surgens should be proud of being heart surgens independent of their religious affiliation.I fail to see any hard evidence that religion is effecting the quality of science coming from scientists who are persistently publishing in peer reviewed journals. Idealism is when you envision or see things in an ideal or perfect manner. In short, epistemological realism holds the explanation to distinct the difference between photograph and painting. But look at the culture. Epistemological realism claims that it is possible to obtain knowledge about mind‐independent reality. For that singular focus, you have to study eastern faiths (not religions), mostly of Indian subcontinent. Finally, concluding remarks ensue. I don't care if you feel compelled to worship smurf action figures, if you do great science I am more than happy to acknowledge your good work. John,So you run catholicscience.com! Well, you as a person, as a spirit, it was not ; however, you took it as if it is a personal attack, and that is after nearly 50 comments worth of dialog! Ancient1,"we must try to bring an order in this"Okay, the set of all things that are true. True religion being the set of all things that are true and science being the subset of those things that are provable. The entire purpose of school and getting an education is to give people experience so that they can know and interact with others. Types of idealist epistemology can be differentiated with respect to incompatible forms of realism. I think QL42's rationale approaches that. Ancient1: -- Actually what I wrote in my last paragraph is the exact opposite of what you say I wrote. It follows the general rejection of philosophical idealism and the acceptance of reality as independent of human perception. It’s often contrasted with pragmatist or realist, i.e. We commonly speak of people who are veterans (either in the military, in business, in politics, in economics, in research etc.) Don't we have to go out on a limb and be idealists for this to happen? Idealism is the view that things exist only as ideas, with no reality as material objects outside of the mind. Realists believe that everything exists in a reality independent of the observer. These three strands are treated in turn. "I'm very glad. It is like physiological projection where some issue you might struggle with you start assuming everyone else does too.Nobody thinks religious labels are required for science. To use an analogy that might make sense, realism would be like a theory of physics that accepts conservation of energy, and idealism would be like a theory that does not accept that conservation of energy. In effect, it is brainwashing by a belief. Everyone is their own universe spinning independently" and then something about not imposing your will on them. One day I would like to talk to you more about such views as I'm sure they are *very* interesting. Once they have had similar experiences then we have a common ground to start from and we can be assured of the fact that we are speaking about the same thing. As a LDS scientist in the start of my career I'm just now beginning to see the fundamental importance of addressing these kinds of questions, so I really appreciate finding blogs like this one to hash through this stuff with folks like yourselves.