10
Consensus reality is bourgeois.
(multiverse.soulism.net)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Feb 2026
10 points (81.2% liked)
Anarchism
2796 readers
44 users here now
Discuss anarchist praxis and philosophy. Don't take yourselves too seriously.
Other anarchist comms
- !anarchism@slrpnk.net
- !anarchism@lemmy.blahaj.zone
- !anarchism@hexbear.net
- !anarchism@lemmy.ml
- !anarchism101@lemmy.ca
- !flippanarchy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
No, neither of those two things are true.
I don't think all scientists work backwards from their own conclusions. But I do think they work forwards from the conclusions of those who came before. Standing on the shoulders of giants, and all that. Science cannot create axioms, so the foundation of scientific knowledge is always nonscientific reasoning and observation.
And I think it's perfectly appropriate to use violence on those whose worldview is violent. Look up the tolerance paradox sometime for an explanation why.
You're really missing some key information here. When people go to school to become scientists, they retest old experiments as part of their training as a way to demonstrate:
However, these are not hard and fast models that must never be questioned. Science is constantly changing as new objective facts are uncovered, experiments are reviewed and retested, and new ones are scrutinized by expert peers.
No, the foundation of scientific knowledge is facts. That's why we can unilaterally say that trans women are women. That's why we know that evolution is true. That's why we don't say that people with extra melanin in their skin are a different species from people with less.
It's true that the interpretation of those facts comes from our subjective understanding in an effort to get as close to an objective model as possible. We necessarily experience the objective universe subjectively. But the fact that experiments are repeatable and certain facts remain the same no matter how many times we observe them is a key indicator that reality has objectivity.
I don't know that I personally agree (maybe if we agree what "violence" means), but I'm aware of the tolerance paradox. I was pointing out that the philosophy to which you hold does not seem to be internally consistent. I think it's excellent that you do not hold space for bigots, but if you believe in a universally subjective reality, and it is universally wrong under your philosophy to enforce a subjective paradigm upon someone else, that notion must apply universally. It cuts both ways, as it were.
In other words, it seems that the Tolerance Paradox is baked into the notion that reality is wholly subjective.
I have a Bachelor of Science, and plenty of experience with the scientific method. And I don't really feel like having a debate over epistemology, so I'll give you a challenge instead: Find an empirical study on JSTOR which proves that an external world beyond our senses exists and we are not being misled by Descartes' evil demon. I'm asserting science is built upon axioms, you're asserting science is foundational. So use science to prove that the world beyond our senses exists, and you're not allowed to use any other areas of philosophy! Just science. I expect the paper to be peer reviewed.
Ah, but I do not believe it is universally wrong to enforce a subjective paradigm. I am quite happy to use violence to enforce My subjective views. For example, if someone throws a Sieg Heil on national television, I believe it is perfectly appropriate to hit them in the face with a baseball bat until they agree to believe in the subjective opinion that genocide is bad. Surely you agree that ethics have no objective truth behind them, yet I would endorse the use of violence to enforce a particular form of ethics that says we should not mass murder people for their ethnicity. Much as the Allied soldiers did in World War 2.
Then you're doing the exact same thing as the people you claim are unjustly enforcing objective reality, undercutting the very reason for rejecting it in the first place. That's why I said the belief is internally inconsistent.
The realists tell the lie that their beliefs are objective truth. I enforce My beliefs on others, yet tell no lie.