Objective Truth

[wynn]

No, the word you were actually looking for

And your contempt is duly noted.

[Arioch]

As it should be. It's not like I don't have adequate reason to show contempt. You're claiming that there's some other method out there that we have to use to gain this knowledge of god and yet you not only won't tell us what this method is, but you simply can't explain why the scientific method, the best method we have for gaining knowledge period, won't work.

[Arioch]

Ridicule is the only weapon available against unintelligible propositions. And religious faith(whether you want to call it something else or not) can only be defined as unintelligible.

[wynn]

Perhaps if you could show me one thing that religion has gotten right that isn't patently obvious, something that it hypothesized and was later prove to be correct, then you'd have a point. Until then science is not only one of the only reliable methods of obtaining knowledge but it is hands down the best method available, bar none.

Besides, I did say "methods that are wrong..." not "method" meaning that I acknowledge that there are plenty of methods out there that claim to help us gain knowledge. It's just that none of them actually work as any method can be right by chance, and such methods have a track record that is well below what one would expect by chance.

I didn't get the impression that religion ever tried to compete with science or that religion would conceive of its methods as alternatives to science.

Although there certainly are some scientists and some religionists who wish to present religion that way.

Religion and science are addressing different areas of considerations respectively.

[wynn]

As it should be. It's not like I don't have adequate reason to show contempt. You're claiming that there's some other method out there that we have to use to gain this knowledge of god and yet you not only won't tell us what this method is, but you simply can't explain why the scientific method, the best method we have for gaining knowledge period, won't work.

Ridicule is the only weapon available against unintelligible propositions. And religious faith(whether you want to call it something else or not) can only be defined as unintelligible.

Fortunately or unfortunately, ridicule and contempt have an adverse effect on the ridiculer and contempter - they make him blind and deaf.

[wynn]

In good faith, this thread was intended as a discussion, not a debate.

If you don't want to discuss, then go elsewhere.

[Votorx]

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?

I like to think of objective truth as synonymous to a physical event. Objective truth can never exist in our mind since we have to rely on our senses to make inferences about our world. Although we can only know subjective truth, we get as close as we can to objectivity by making observations, creating assumptions and reaching conclusions.

Subjectively I know I'm typing on a computer. Objectively some complex particle interactions are occurring or something else completely.

Objective truth has always been, it's static and it can't be known, at least not by humans. Subjective truth has a causal impact on the world, and the degree of success is a tool we use to measure how close we are to objectivity. If the truth is wildly successful, such as "We exist", then we say we're really darn close to being objective, but unfortunately that conclusion's also subjective

[Balerion]

And your contempt is duly noted.

He was right, by the way. Dualism is not a synonym for dichotomy.

[NietzscheHimself]

How are we to accept or reject the objective truth, when we don't know what it is?

[NietzscheHimself]

If there is Absolute Truth ; there also has to be a Relative Truth .

Or there is no absolute truth. Godele is ultimately correct in his relative assessment of incompleteness. But if there were in fact an absolute measure of truth we can say for certain it would come from an object and not the word of some biased persona.

[BeHereNow]

As it should be. It's not like I don't have adequate reason to show contempt. You're claiming that there's some other method out there that we have to use to gain this knowledge of god and yet you not only won't tell us what this method is, but you simply can't explain why the scientific method, the best method we have for gaining knowledge period, won't work.

The 'best method' sometimes fails.
A startling and undenable example is rogue waves.

In the case of rogue waves, the 'best method' failed, for decades and centuries to reconize the objective truth of rogue waves. It even denied the 'reasonable' possibility of thier existence. The several variations of the 'best method', failed to say, 'Yes a good possiblity rogue waves exist'.

During this time of denial, personal experience recognized the objective truth of rogue waves.
Shackleton was an explorer, a scientist of sorts, who claimed personal experience of rogue waves, and he was not believed for nearly 70 years.

Personal experience succeeds, where the 'best method' fails.
This is simply a factual statement.

Sometimes personal experience fails, somethimes the 'best method' fails.
It is up to the observer to decide, which, where, what and when.

[wellwisher]

I have done this example before. Although dreams are an objective experience, which most people have had, there is no known scientific way to prove the details of any particular dream. The scientific method breaks. We can give science thousands of dream data point by hundreds of reliable witnesses, yet there is still not way to conclusively prove the details. It comes down to faith in the witnesses.

This is similar to the rogue wave example. The difference is, although rogue waves are rare, dreams are as common as water, yet we cannot prove or reproduce a particular dream, therefore, accordion to science, it will be considered unproven. The consensus method gets to enforce an erroneous conclusion (unproven) while proof based on endless testimony and observation carries no weight even though this is real. It is easier to go into denial than admit the method is not adequate for the task.

The frontiers of the human mind are currently beyond science as we know. We can look from the outside, and see how the brain behaves if someone is dreaming. But there is no way to look directly inside the mind. Currently, this type of observation can only be done with consciousness itself.

Say, someone had what they infer was an experience of God. Like a simple dream there is no way to prove or reproduce this to satisfy the scientific method. The experience of God might impinge upon the brain either internally or via sensory input where it is processed in the brain creating output effects, like feelings or other imagination inductions. The composite might be something one is objective to, but it is not provable via science, which can;'t even do dreams.

[Yazata]

You're claiming that there's some other method out there that we have to use to gain this knowledge of god and yet you not only won't tell us what this method is, but you simply can't explain why the scientific method, the best method we have for gaining knowledge period, won't work.

Science is very good at describing physical entities' causal interactions. Provided #1 that the physical entities are observable, and #2 that the causal interactions display law-like regularities.

I'm not sure what the word 'God' means. But most religious accounts have it referring to some non-physical being that supposedly exists outside the space-time universe entirely. So it isn't clear how natural science could ever attain the access necessary to observe it.

And this 'God' isn't described as behaving in a regular predictable law-like manner. Its (supposed) interactions with this physical reality are more along the lines of unique one-offs, better captured by a narrative story-line than by a mathematical equation.

[BeHereNow]

Science is very good at describing physical entities' causal interactions. Provided #1 that the physical entities are observable, and #2 that the causal interactions display law-like regularities.

I'm not sure what the word 'God' means. But most religious accounts have it referring to some non-physical being that supposedly exists outside the space-time universe entirely. So it isn't clear how natural science could ever attain the access necessary to observe it.

And this 'God' isn't described as behaving in a regular predictable law-like manner. Its (supposed) interactions with this physical reality are more along the lines of unique one-offs, better captured by a narrative story-line than by a mathematical equation.

Rogue waves satisfied both requirements as stated, and science still did not recognize them as objective truths.

[ughaibu]

. . . . science still did not recognize them as objective truths.

Do you mean 'there was no quantitative observation'?

[BeHereNow]

Do you mean 'there was no quantitative observation'?

Well, since you ask, I mean rogue waves are/were physical entities are observable, and #2 that the causal interactions display law-like regularities.

Currently the scientific method says computer models may be used instead of actual observations, and computer models can be used instead of what many persons refer to as quantitative observations.
Computer models were used to show the extremely unlikely (all but impossible) possiblibility of rogue waves.
In that sense, no, I do not mean 'there was no quantitative observation', as there was, according to the rules of science in application of the scientific method as modified in the 70's sometime (as I recall).

[Yazata]

I like to think of objective truth as synonymous to a physical event.

I'm inclined to follow the same line that you do, but might describe it a little differently.

'Truth' is a logical property of propositions. Truth exists, in the correspondence theory of truth at least, when a proposition corresponds to a fact. A 'fact' is the real-world correlate of a true proposition, an existing state-of-affairs.

Objective truth can never exist in our mind since we have to rely on our senses to make inferences about our world.

Not only that, we are kind of forced to conceptualize our experiences in terms of concepts that derive from our culture and intellectual history.

I'd say that 'objective truth' is truth that refers to extra-subjective objects. Objects in the external-world that are accessible to other observers. 'Subjective truth' is truth that refers to me and my own internal states. 'It's raining outside' is an objective truth (relative to my time and position). 'I enjoy the rain' is a truth about my own subjectivity.

Thinking about that for a moment suggests that objectivity might come in different grades. Truths can become more objective, the less dependent they are on the characteristics of particular observers.

Although we can only know subjective truth, we get as close as we can to objectivity by making observations, creating assumptions and reaching conclusions.

Yeah, I agree. I think that a totally objective truth is kind of a cognitive ideal. It's something that people shoot for, but probably can never fully achieve. Science especially, tries to make its content as little dependent as possible on the ideosyncrasies of individual scientists. But even science is conducted by finite human beings in a particular historical context.

Objective truth has always been, it's static and it can't be known, at least not by humans.

I'm inclined to think that the objective facts are a constantly changing flux. But there are invariants in there too, science's causal 'laws', logic and mathematics, whatever universals refer to, and so on. That gets us into problems of metaphysics.

But yeah, whatever they are, the facts of the universe probably can't be known with total objectivity by human beings like us, without our ceasing to be human beings. Knower and known would have to merge and become one, in which case it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to even speak of knowledge any more.

But at the same time... while we probably can't know the universe with total objectivity, we nevertheless are parts of the universe. Our being might kind of exceed our own knowing.

[ughaibu]

In that sense, no, I do not mean 'there was no quantitative observation', as there was, according to the rules of science in application of the scientific method as modified in the 70's sometime (as I recall).

The first quantitative observation was recorded in 1995: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draupner_wave Science requires quantitative observations, and science is metaphysically neutral, it makes no claims about the truth.

[BeHereNow]

The first quantitative observation was recorded in 1995: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draupner_wave Science requires quantitative observations, and science is metaphysically neutral, it makes no claims about the truth.

What are we to say about computer models?

Isn't it true that in many fields, evolution being one example, that computer modles are used in the place of actual quantitative observations?
Can't we say that science claims that evolution is extremely likely, to a 'scientific certainity' due to evidence beyond any quantitative observations?

We agree that science makes no claim about 'truth', has no 'scientific proof' for any thing.

[ughaibu]

Can't we say that science claims that evolution is extremely likely, to a 'scientific certainity' due to evidence beyond any quantitative observations?

Evolution is observed. Many evolutionary phenomena are observed. In short, there is a fact of evolution and there are facts of evolution. Computer simulations are irrelevant to this.