Socially Subjective Facts

Philosophical realism is the idea that there is an objective reality that exists independently of our beliefs. I think philosophical realism is obviously true, and it always surprises me to find out there are people who don't (which includes nearly 20% of professional philosophers).

However, there is a sense in which non-realism actually makes sense.

For example, money. There is almost nothing useful you can do with a dollar bill. What few things you can do with it (like burning it for heat) can be better achieved with other, more readily available materials (like wood). The only reason money is valuable, is because people believe it's valuable. We're willing to trade useful items for money, because we know everyone else is also willing to trade useful items for money, not because the money itself is useful.

Many things in society are like that. The leader of a organization is the person whose orders are followed, and people follow the orders of the person they believe is the leader of the organization. Laws are what police and judges enforce, and police and judges enforce what they believe the laws are. Art is whatever people believe art is.

I'd go so far as to say that most people's experiences are shaped more by these socially subjective facts, than by physically objective facts. Maybe that has something to do with some people's rejection of even physical realism.

Meaning

Do flergamarms exist?

Well, what do you mean by "flergamarms"? Or to put it more precisely, what empirical observations would you be able to make that would be different if flergamarms did exist than if they did not?

Flergamarms are invisible, intangible, and in fact, cannot be observed in any way. They have no observable effects, nor are they a logical consequence of something observable. As such, there is no such observation that would be different depending on the existence of flergamarms. So, do they exist?

Well, I wouldn't say they exist, but I'm also wouldn't say that they don't exist. Rather, I'd say that the question is meaningless. I would say that something can only have meaning if it's in some way connected to reality, and to be connected to reality, it has to be observable, or the logical consequence of something observable.

I'm not completely certain about that. Maybe there is some sense in which the term "flergamarm" is meaningful. I can't think of anything that could be though. And even if there is, there's still not much point in discussing such entities.

Science and Wonder

It is a common notion that science takes the wonder out of life. A prime example is John Keats's poem, Lamia.

Do not all charms fly
At the mere touch of cold philosophy?
There was an awful rainbow once in heaven:
We know her woof, her texture; she is given
In the dull catalogue of common things.
Philosophy will clip an Angel's wings,
Conquer all mysteries by rule and line,
Empty the haunted air, and gnomèd mine—
Unweave a rainbow, as it erewhile made
The tender-person'd Lamia melt into a shade.

I think this notion is wrong. Science, when properly understood, doesn't destroy wonder, it enhances it.

First, I'd like to clearly separate two relevant meanings of the word wonder. The first is synonymous with awe, the feeling you get when you think, "That's really really cool!". The second is synonymous with curiosity, the feeling you get when you think, "I wonder how that works...". They frequently come together, but they don't have to. It's entirely possible to feel awe at something that you understand completely, or to feel curious about something isn't particularly awe-inspiring.

Science enhances the feeling awe, because it reveals nature, and nature is, well, awesome. The real world is far cooler and more interesting than any fictional world I've ever read about (which is not to say that fictional worlds can't also be cool and interesting). I've written about this before, and given several examples of real awe-inspiring things. Most of those things would never be known about without science. And you can't have a feeling of awe towards something you don't know exists.

Science enhances curiosity in much the same way. Every question answered by science uncovers still more to be asked. Questions you wouldn't even be able to ask before, since you wouldn't have known the concepts they apply to.

I think the reason Keats, and others who make this claim do so because of two mistakes. First, they don't realize that the feeling of awe can be separated from the feeling of curiosity. Second, they don't realize that answering questions you're curious about can uncover deeper questions. If those two things weren't the case, then science would destroy wonder. Fortunately they're not.

Jesus

On this day of Easter, let us not forget this important fact: Jesus did not exist.

Now, don't get me wrong. It's entirely possible, perhaps even probable, that there was a guy named Yeshua who came from Nazareth and preached in Jerusalem and was crucified for his beliefs.

But that's not the person that Christians are talking about when they talk about Jesus. They're talking about the son of God, born of a virgin, who performed miracles and rose from the dead. That Jesus never existed. And that Jesus is not the same person as Yeshua. If he is, then Santa Claus lived in Turkey in 300 AD.

And we know next to nothing about the "real" Jesus. The only writings we have that talk about Jesus and were written anywhere close to when he actually lived were written by Christians, and were talking about the miraculous version.

EDIT:
And it's entirely possible the "real" Jesus didn't exist either.

Reality is Objective

Reality is objective. What's true is true for everyone, regardless of what people believe.

You'd think this would be obvious. And yet, it comes up. Particularly in debates about the supernatural. People will say things like "Well, maybe ghosts don't exist for you, but they do exist for me." I've never seen anyone apply this sort of reasoning when doing something mundane, like say, crossing the street. No one ever says "That bus might exist for you, but it doesn't exist for me." People know there either is a bus there, or there isn't, regardless of what they believe, and if they want to not get hit by it, they ought to have beliefs which match objective reality.

I think the idea that reality is different to different people might come from the thought that our senses are infallible. If I see something, that means it's there. If I see something, and someone else sees something different, well our realities must be different. But our senses aren't infallible, and we frequently see or hear things that aren't there, or fail to see or hear things that are.

It seems to me much easier to explain occasional discrepancies in our perceptions in an objective reality than to explain the ubiquitous consistency of our perceptions. How often do people disagree about whether it's day or night, whether they're inside or outside, whether they're sitting or standing, whether there's a bus in the road or not? If reality were subjective, why would such consistency be so common?

The Wonder of Nature

I saw a billboard recently that said "Explore nature, there are surprises everywhere". Pictured, it has kids in a forest, with Shrek. Personally, I think the presence of Shrek does a disservice to the message.

The reason is that Shrek isn't in nature. But things much more wonderful and amazing are. Nature has the Grand Canyon. Nature has Mount Everest. Nature has Angel Falls and Yellowstone and the Redwood forest.

There are trees literally thousands of years old. There are fungal colonies that cover miles of land. There are organisms that can survive boiling temperatures, or extreme radioactivity. There are even animals that can survive being in space.

There's no fiction that can compare to the magic and fantasy of real life.