People commonly think of some things as subjective and some things as objective. Subjective things are those thought of as "matters of opinion." Like art. Some people are of the opinion that beauty is subjective, so one person may say a piece of artwork is beautiful while another may think it crap. And because the matter is subjective, they are both right. But in logic there is the Law of Non-Contradiction that says that no proposition can be both true and false at the same time. The problem I see is that calling certain matters subjective requires breaking the Law of Non-Contradiction. So I guess my question is, if the law of non-contradiction is accepted, must all matters be considered objective? Or is there some way around this?
if the brain is a system, neurons are on its lowest level, and beauty on its highest. All the layers in between (groupings of neurons, groupings of groupings of neurons etc.) complicate things until they no longer follow logical rules. People are irrational.
For something to be objective, requires a subject to make it so. There is no "objective", in other words, because subject/object are the two sides of the required coin.
I think that a subjective truth has an implied objective truth behind it. For example: "This flower is beautiful" is a subjective truth - meaning it is only true for particular subjects. So the implied objective truth is "This flower is beautiful to this particular subject." So when two people state apparently contradictory subjective truths, there is not necessarily an objective contradiction because the two statements have different implied objective truths.
Noncontradiction Layers My guess is that an alleged fact cannot be both true and false for a given viewer, but that different viewers with different information may come to different conclusions, only one of which is factually correct, but neither of which violate the law of noncontradiction within themselves. So, we might say that all so-called objective truths are determined to be objective solely by the inductive reasoning that a great majority of humans report the same observation about a given fact, whereas we might inductively determine that a view is purely subjective if many people differ on a matter. As such, it's all subjective, and the objective facts are merely determined to be objective as a matter of inductive reasoning about subjective reports.
any observation is dependent on the state of the observer. we can not assume that two observers will establish a completely identical state of observation. this is an absolute requirement that can not be fulfilled. appearance of contradiction, as in the relativity theory, depends on what is assumed to be fixed as a variable; that is as a shared state with another observer. the statement of true or false can not be ascertained conclusively, realistically, and appear to be, at best, a working hypothesis. some of these statements seem to work, in the specific chosen setup, better that others. much of our "objective" knowledge is derived from subjectively internalized knowledge, and a lot of our subjective inclinations are due to unconscious knowledge, that is nonetheless "objective"...
i dont know that subjectivity has to do with truth at all. it has to do with perception. what you see and feel. is a mirage true or false? it is simply perceived. fuzzy logic allows intermediate values but fuzzy logic is more about Bayesian probabilities than anything else. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability The epistemological difference between Bayesian and Frequentist interpretations of probability has no important consequences in statistical practice.[dubious – discuss] But in regards to the use of the term "Bayesian" in a mathematical sense, the practical difference is whether prior information is included in a calculation of a posteriori probability. Non-Bayesian sampling statistics assume that one knew nothing of the thing being sampled prior to the sampling. But this assumption is almost never true in the real world.[10] Bayesian analysis simply allows prior probabilities to be taken into account when interpreting observations In fact, Bayesian analysis can even use prior information that was based on other statistical sampling methods and need not be associated with subjective methods at all. Furthermore, it can be shown that over a large number of trials, even a subjective "calibrated probability assessment" will agree with observed distributions (i.e. an "80% certain prediction" will be right 80% of the time).[11] This result means that Bayesian analysis, even when it is based on subjective probabilities, will agree with the frequentist's approach.[dubious – discuss] Finally, it must be noted that Bayes Theorem itself is mathematically proven and is not at all subjective. It is derived from axiomatic elements of probability theory and makes no reference to whether prior knowledge is subjective or based on a large number of observations. These points together largely blunt any practical difference between the two philosophical positions when applied to real statistical problems[dubious – discuss] and, in reality, it is not uncommon for statisticians to use both. However, there continues to be confusion about the use of the term Bayesian in regards to the epistemological position, and its practical use in statistics.
gurglingmonkey that would depend on which field your discussing because in psycology for example subjective can be more important than objective indicators. This is because it really doesnt matter how someone else views something like a persons mental state or how they are "coping" if THEY feel that they arent able to cope (or are close to suicide) thats more important
