Objective Truth
- Thread starter Mind Over Matter
- Start date
Actually, to me it seems like all you have to go by is what you project onto me, your apparent insistence on reducing anyone who identifies as an atheist to something much less than they really are being a case in point.
Last edited:
There is a difference between projection for the sake of furthering discussion; and projection for the sake of judging.
For some reason, some people go for the latter - both in projecting into other people's words in order to judge those people, and in projecting into other people's words in order to feel judged by other people.
Instead of considering their position attacked, they consider themselves attacked; instead of defending their position, they defend themselves ...
This is what I mean. You're projecting right now. The fact is that I am just not as emotionally invested in these forums as you seem to be. To me it's just discussion, and while I certainly do assign degrees of importance to some topics, this place it is not a primary outlet for me. It really doesn't constitute a truly significant part of my social interaction. In a nutshell, you seem far more sensitive to what gets discussed around here, and the manner in which it is discussed, than I would expect someone to be if they chose to engage with free and critical thinkers.
What I think you need is a place that is more focused on encouraging people to reach their desired destination, rather than one that is more focused on critically examining the veracity of the epistemologies that one may decide to employ in their attempts to reach their particular goals. But I'm really not trying to push you away from here (nor do I believe I even possess such a degree of influence), I am simply saying that perhaps you need a balance of both.
When it comes to science and objective truth, there is a dual standard in terms of the new science creators and the science critics. The creators of new science have to follow strict guidelines, based on the scientific method. The critics of new or old science have no such standard. There are no rules within the scientific method that says you can't criticize new or old science in an irrational or political way. This flaw make it hard to achieve objective truth.
If you look at global warming, any insight into the nature of weather pro or con should be welcome, since it provides new insight. But since the science critic has no rules, politics can be used to discredit even valid science, that does not agree with the status quo. This does not lead to objective truth.
Picture the situation where the science critic was given the same burden of proof as a science creator. Or, we can do it the other way, and allow the science creator to have the same burden as the critic, which is little or any burden.
For example, in terms of a consistent standard for both creator and critic, say someone suggest global warming is not real. The critic can character assassinate them. To make this equal, the creator can now also use subjective tactics and only has to say his research is good and it has to be published.
What role does the dual standard play in objective truth?
The way I look at it is, science is not self sufficient in terms of money and resources, but rather is beholden to business and government. The guy with the purse does has the final say, and he may be a bean counter. Since he makes the party possible, he gets to say whatever he wants. If you don't like his party you can leave, since others are waiting to get in for jobs.
This standard set the rules for the science critic. If science was a nonprofit and was self sufficient, the rules would be defined by science and not by bean counters or politicians. But since this is not the case, partial objective truth is all you will get because the head of the party has many other priorities.
Should science set up a consistent standard for critic and creator and would this even be possible or allowable?
If you look at global warming, any insight into the nature of weather pro or con should be welcome, since it provides new insight. But since the science critic has no rules, politics can be used to discredit even valid science, that does not agree with the status quo. This does not lead to objective truth.
Picture the situation where the science critic was given the same burden of proof as a science creator. Or, we can do it the other way, and allow the science creator to have the same burden as the critic, which is little or any burden.
For example, in terms of a consistent standard for both creator and critic, say someone suggest global warming is not real. The critic can character assassinate them. To make this equal, the creator can now also use subjective tactics and only has to say his research is good and it has to be published.
What role does the dual standard play in objective truth?
The way I look at it is, science is not self sufficient in terms of money and resources, but rather is beholden to business and government. The guy with the purse does has the final say, and he may be a bean counter. Since he makes the party possible, he gets to say whatever he wants. If you don't like his party you can leave, since others are waiting to get in for jobs.
This standard set the rules for the science critic. If science was a nonprofit and was self sufficient, the rules would be defined by science and not by bean counters or politicians. But since this is not the case, partial objective truth is all you will get because the head of the party has many other priorities.
Should science set up a consistent standard for critic and creator and would this even be possible or allowable?
Yeah like Cambridge... That way someone will be able to tell you exactly why your retarded In the other ones the "teachers" mostly understand psychology.
Last edited:
No. People need to realize why they are retarded on their own instead of finding absolute rules for objective arguments. The main difference between the theist and the atheist is the psychology each assumption leads the masses to acquire. A religious man is more like to acquire submissive traits on their path to objectivity. The atheist is more likely to acquire a bit of an ego. Neither is right or wrong. They both attempt to explain the deepest parts of life with something that lies outside the human mind and body. - What society does not realize is the deepest subjects in life rest on the psychology of the masses.
Last edited:
Mind Over Matter
Registered Senior Member
To me, the word "relativism" refers to subjective reasoning and the words "absolute truth" refers to objective truth and consequently objective reasoning.
I would offer that any truth has to be dealt with objectively and not subjectively in order to be defended as absolute.
I would offer that any truth has to be dealt with objectively and not subjectively in order to be defended as absolute.
And how can humans deal with things "objectively"?
Mind Over Matter
Registered Senior Member
People can deal with things "objectively" by solving problems using reason with reference to objective reality, as opposed to dealing with things "subjectively" by using reason with reference to their own perception of personal truth, or worse, relying on irrational feelings alone, to the exclusion of reason.
That doesn't answer my question.
True objectivity requires omniscience.
Simply going by what one considers "reason" and "objective reality" is still subjectivity.
By this standard, we can never know anything since the imposition of any requirement for evaluating truth would always be deemed a subjective one.
Yet there are standards for objective vs subjective truth in practice. I suppose if those standards are arrived at collectively then you have a kind of omniscience at play in a distributed form. There certainly is no question as to the definition of a meter, or the speed of light. They are objective truths to any person calibrating to the standard value. The world could not turn without standards. No one would agree on anything.
A photocell will produce zero volts at night, then a detectable level in sunlight. I can say "the sun is shining" and everyone in the vicinity will agree, yet that may never meet some arbitrary standard such as the requirement for omniscience. Introduce the photocell and the human element goes away, and with it the issue of subjectivity. Or if you don't like human-created devices, then simply observe the morning glories folding up as the sun appears, birds not roosting, and so on.
Most well known truths have some benchmarked standard by which they can be compared. You are posting on Sciforums because you know, from the objective nature of letters and words, that people are talking about objectivity, which triggers your response. If Sciforums does not exist, or if the words posted are not actually addressing objectivity but instead certain reports of Elvis sightings, for example, then you are indeed in serious trouble and you need immediate psychiatric intervention. In that case, feel free to rail against me since I must not exist either and therefore am bulletproof. Furthermore, since there can be no objective standard for decorum, then feel free to go postal. In the interest of science, I absolve you in advance.
The idea that all objectivity within the scope of human knowledge could be erased simply by setting some arbitrary threshold (such as omniscience) might fly within the framework of some kind of virtual world, but it crashes in the real world, which still marks time to the objective standard even while we sleep. And then when we rise it will still be here, doing the things we will continue to accept and know as objectively true.
Mind Over Matter
Registered Senior Member
How would a being know objectively that she is omniscient?
Mind Over Matter
Registered Senior Member
Common sense. What is it? What is meant by it? Is it real? Common sense is just that: a common impression men have from their experience, an impression acquired through our senses (all knowledge is ordinarily acquired through our senses). The world is constantly impressing things on us through our senses, and from this we acquire our concept of reality. It is frequently simple common sense that finally and at lasts rejects a philosophical error that is approaching its mad conclusion ("everything is fake! there is nothing real in reality! everything is meaningless"), as it begins to contrast itself - even violently - with everything that we know and daily experience.
Truth powerfully impresses itself upon us exactly because we have no power to prevent it from doing so. It would require a nearly superhuman effort to avoid absorbing the impression(s) reality makes upon us. From this we have, as it were, a base or foundation of certainty that we can draw from and apply, compare, contrast, etc.; and we do this without even consciously thinking about it. That is why the Apostle speaks of certain of God's attributes being known through the things that He has made. Those things make impressions upon us.
Every single human being - certainly by the age of reason, at least - already has an encyclopedia worth of sense impressions, such that he can already generally predict and expect the ordinary occurences of daily life. He can anticipate not only natural phenomenon but even people's behaviour and reactions toward him depending on his own actions, etc.
Exactly, therefore, because both truth and reality are objective, and because they impress their truth and reality upon us, we can speak of and deal with things objectively; that is, based on what we know about them, with certainty. I know, for example, that I am not a couch. I also know that I am not an irrational animal. I know that I am a man. I know that when there is an absence of light, there is darkness. Based on these seemingly innocuous truths, there is already latent or potent within them a great many and other, perhaps more important truths.
Truth powerfully impresses itself upon us exactly because we have no power to prevent it from doing so. It would require a nearly superhuman effort to avoid absorbing the impression(s) reality makes upon us. From this we have, as it were, a base or foundation of certainty that we can draw from and apply, compare, contrast, etc.; and we do this without even consciously thinking about it. That is why the Apostle speaks of certain of God's attributes being known through the things that He has made. Those things make impressions upon us.
Every single human being - certainly by the age of reason, at least - already has an encyclopedia worth of sense impressions, such that he can already generally predict and expect the ordinary occurences of daily life. He can anticipate not only natural phenomenon but even people's behaviour and reactions toward him depending on his own actions, etc.
Exactly, therefore, because both truth and reality are objective, and because they impress their truth and reality upon us, we can speak of and deal with things objectively; that is, based on what we know about them, with certainty. I know, for example, that I am not a couch. I also know that I am not an irrational animal. I know that I am a man. I know that when there is an absence of light, there is darkness. Based on these seemingly innocuous truths, there is already latent or potent within them a great many and other, perhaps more important truths.
That looks like you're fliritng with Kant.
I suppose that a being who actually is omniscient would not have problems with it.
So?
No. They are group truths, cultural truths, which is why people socialized into that group, accultured into that group, can and do agree on things.
But that agreement is not objectivity.
Not as long as it is humans who are doing the observing and talking about it.
Which are relative to that group or culture.
It's not arbitrary.
It's only an acknowledging of the relativity of human certainty.
You are confusing culture-specific standards (and culture-specific objectivity) for the absolute truth.
What kind of truth depends on a persons approval?