Objective Truth

Philosophically, truth is considered objective in that it exists independently. Objective truth does not depend on a person's approval or acceptance. Objective truth has been in existence since the dawn of human history. However, humans can reject objective truth. Rejection of objective truth does not destroy objective truth.

Thoughts?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

err, what was the question again?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'd put it more as objective truth can be unknown and/or not understood. It is what fits with the physical laws.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So let me get this straight.
Objective truth is subject to the subjugation of the obsfucation of the ...where were we again?

 

You seem to be talking about correspondence theory, what about coherence theory?

 

What theory of truth are you operating with?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth

 

Sometimes objective truth can change from objective to subjective as understanding and proof progresses. For example, at one time the world was considered flat. Based on normal human experience at that time, there was no direct data to the contrary, so this was considered objective truth, based on the preponderance of observational and sensory data.

Today, we base the round earth assumption on others. In other words, although the earth is round, very few humans actually have their own direct sensory proof of this. You take the word of the experts.

Say there were no trustworthy experts. It would be easier to prove to yourself a flat earth than a round earth. The flat earth only requires looking outside at what appears to be endless flat land due to huge size. The round proof will require a tough sea voyage, to gather direct data, that few will have the stones to take. So it was consensus objective, based on the preponderance of direct observation, that the earth was once flat.

This consensus observational objectivity of a flat earth, changed to subjective, after some people risked the journey to gain direct proof. The consensus then defined this as objective.

Even today in science, even if a theory was conceptually true, if it lacks data, the old theory is considered objective truth, due to consensus objective data. But if the new data appears, the old can change to subjective. The old worked with the smaller data set; a local arc of the curve. But this arc would now be subjective for the larger arc on the curve.

 

It seems OK to me, MoM, and I also agree with elte.

I would have rephrased the statement that objective truth has existed for (however long), so that we account for later objective truths.

By the same token, it's not clear to me that objective truth persists. It would seem OK for it to be here today, gone tomorrow (depending on the application, I guess).

For example, there is a time when the statement It is 12:00 may be true or false, and the locales in which it is true or false will circulate the globe.

I am not sure that all Objective Truth is always independent (unless that's a constraint by definition). For example the statement A possum is a marsupial is objectively true, yet it may depend on the statement "Possum" is also spelled "Opossum" to convey the complete truth.

 

You are struggling over the definition of the word objective.

But why?

Ah: you have lost your objectivity.

 

WW, a sea voyage wouldn't be necessary. An understanding of how water levels itself and then seeing the mast of a receding ship drop below the horizon shows the earth as round. I might have thought the same thing you did if I hadn't read about it recently.

A way to think of objective truth is that it is reality; it never changes even though our perception of it might. It might be accurate to say that humans will never be able to see truth objectively in a similar sense that we can't have free will or perfect love.

 

Bah, truth is only one of the hottest topics in philosophy ...

 

When I am talking about an objective truth, I am not operating with any particular theory of truth. Choose whatever "theory" you wish.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

An objective truth means that it exists independently of anyone's approval. Gravity is an objective truth.

 

If you want to talk like that, then we need to be clear that this is not meant to be a philosophical discussion of any kind.

In that case, it seems that by "objective," you mean something like 'pertaining to objects, to the material as opposed to persons.'

 

Others can claim personal revelations regarding whatever they want, but the only "objective world" I have access to is the one of outer sense, that is perceived and understood by conscious biotic agents[FN]. Granted, it's not some abstract value called "truth" that seems better fit for propositions, but some of the latter are surely derived from it. The aforementioned world defies my personal will, is apparently interpersonal (other humans confer about it), is actually exhibited or encountered rather than hiding, and seems to have reliable habits slash is regulated. Thus the objectivity. If there's either evidence or good argument that what follows death is "nothing" (that is, we dissolve and return to some background "norm" of non-consciousness), then that would also be the extent of what any [other?] "supposed" Truth, minus the conditioning of consciousness, is in itself: Absence.

[FN] Or at least, that's the story which experience wants to tell upfront via such conscious agents getting clobbered on the head or falling asleep, regardless of whether or not it is coherent with its other stories inferred further down the road.

 

I think truth is truth. Period.

However, it is in the manner of approach in which we decipher truth that our manner is either objective or subjective.

But there is also untruth, as in Wellwisher's example of a flat earth: it's true that the Earth appears flat, which is a testimony to our size relative to the planet's size—which is also very true.

 

I guess that at its most basic, 'objective' is contrasted with 'subjective'. These are predicates applied to statements, addressing what the statement refers to.

1) Chickens have feathers.

2) I like to eat chicken.

#1 is objective because it's saying something about objects (chickens) that exist out in the world independently of us. #2 is subjective, because it isn't really talking about chickens at all, it's actually saying something about the person (the subject) who made the statement.

It can get complicated. A lot depends on what theory of truth we adopt. (I favor a correspondence theory.) And problems are going to arise associated with perception and language.

'Truth' is a property of propositions. Propositions are expressed in language, so there will be questions about how accurately and completely our linguistic statements can capture actual existent facts of existence. We employ concepts in our thinking that often succeed in achieving reference and possess some semblance of truth, even while the concept itself is often crude and erroneous in many ways. Obsolete scientific concepts are examples of that.

And there are many people out there who favor representative and constructivist theories of perception. (I don't.) These views hold that what we actually perceive aren't the external objects that we think we're seeing at all, but rather our internal mental representations of them. These theories remain popular, despite implying that all human judgements can only be subjective, that they are really about how each of us imagines the world and not about how the world is in itself. (The idea of an objective world independent of our perceptions of it often drops out of these theories entirely as being superfluous and objectivity is dismissed as an illusion.) These theories typically lead inexorably into philosophical idealism and the problem then becomes holding on to some remnant of a common intersubjective universe and avoiding solipsism.

 

A Fun objective truth...

-Truth is variable.

 

On the other hand, for many people, the mere concept of there being a "theory of truth" implies a negation of truth, a pernicious relativism.
Because, as their reasoning goes, truth, if it is to be truth, should not come with or in theories, it ought to be just truth.

 

Truth is an overused and multimeaning word, so before you can talk about truth you must designate precisely what you are asking.

If you mean scientific "truth", there is no such thing. There are facts and there are theories that explain those facts coherently. There can always be more facts and different, more explanitory theories, but there will always be the possibility they, too, will be falsified. And that's as close to objective truth as it is possible to come. Science is a process to search for the truth about the reality around us but will never be the absolute truth(though we do tend to get closer and closer to it).

If you are talking about mathematical truth, that is based on concepts and definitions and not about the real world. It may or may not be congruent with reality.

As far as philosophical truth, your on your own, it's more opinion than anything else though it can sharpen your logic and reasoning skills and it can inform to some degree. Not absolute in any case.

Linguistically, it's a lot like math in that is based on symbology and definition, but it is often about evidenced things(so is math but in different ways). There is logic within it that if met makes for truth that can be defined as absolute.

I'm sure there are others, but until you indicate your definition of absolute truth more precisely it's hard to discuss the subject.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

"Cogito ergo sum"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!