Belief/evidence

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Simon Anders, Nov 22, 2008.

  1. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,844
    That's a bit "proverby" on the second pass don't you think?

    That's not ALL it is, it's actually an important concept by which to generate questions in the pursuit of epistemological comprehension.

    It CAN and probably often IS used as you mentioned, but it seems a smidge excessive to offer it repeatedly.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,454
    But if you can not prove that the observation is of what you believe it to be of, you must surely be making the assumption that it is.

    And all this is using certain assumptions... e.g. assumptions that you are not a "brain-in-a-jar" - which is a logical possibility, if not the most rational.

    We seem to have differing views on what "subjective" means.
    A brick, observed subjectively, will still cause the damage, still be physical etc. But your observation of the brick is subjective. My observation of the brick will be different to yours. i.e. subjective.

    Again - I am not denying the existence of objective reality. I am denying the ability to objectively observe it: i.e. any observation made is subjective. And therefore your reality is subjective... i.e. unique to you.

    This does NOT mean that there is no objective reality - only that we can not observe it. This is a distinct difference to claiming that objective reality does not exist.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,844
    well technically we can observe it... but observation renders it subjective, so we can only claim out subjective comprehension of it.

    that's not to say that because it's subjective, observations are necessarily useless to other subjects... as observation can be done in a manner as impartial as possible and information related to other subjects in a utilitarian manner.

    heh.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Tnerb Banned Banned

    Messages:
    7,917
    yah.
     
  8. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,454
    Well, I would say that if we are observing it that there is no way to prove we are - as our observation of it makes our comprehension of it subjective.

    It's like a blind man not knowing if what he is feeling with his hands is a brick. He can subjectively comprehend it as a brick... it has the shape and qualities of a brick, and can probably be used as bricks are used... but because he can not observe it directly, he can't prove it is a brick.

    If we add in visual observation as well it is no different - it merely provides one more piece of evidence but does not provide the proof of objective reality.

    Agreed.
    If the blind man thinks it is a brick and uses it as a brick... then to him it is a brick, regardless of objective reality.
     
  9. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,844
    I dig that in spirit, but proof is relative and such. It is the satisfaction of some personal criteria. To me, that we can have this conversation proves well enough to me that we are observers of something 'objective', but the act of doing so does as we apparently agree.

    Of course that is not absolute proof...

    But absolute proof is a myth to those who do not believe something absolutely.

    Circular logic is a powerful, even sometimes reasonable tool by which to fortify belief (absolute proof).

    But really, to whom could he prove it but himself? If he's satisfied that it's a brick, but I think it's actually a rock shaped like a brick... who should the blind man believe? lol, pardon I'm just making conversation.

    I agree with you pretty much exactly, but in just reaching for something to communicate about this rather interesting point, I probably accomplish little but to fuel glaucon's smug satisfaction in pointing out that semantics is the thing. What a smug bastard.

    But, it CAN provide proof if you let it man. Or...
    Not if you don't.

    Who is right seems to be more a matter of tenacity than anything.

    tru dat. tru.

    i find that it's pretty much a cost-benefit thing at that point.

    Is it a brick?
    (what does it matter if it is or isn't?)
    (analysis)
    -> raped by nazi zombies and killed in front of my children if it isn't a brick:

    00-> better figure it out, but how do zombies know what bricks are? i always thought they were naturally stupid. ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. maybe these are hyper cranial nazi zombies! nooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    0000->nevermind this is stupid, brickish enough to me:

    -=> sumbitchin brick. if you can't beat'em, join I spoze.

    *censored*
     
  10. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    No you are going around and around. I clearly stated that all truth is objective. There is no such thing as subjective truth. It is impossible for truth to be subjective. It has never and can never be done. Never has anything that is true been true for one person but not another. Subjective truth means that it is possible for something to be true for one person and false for another. I have yet to see any proof of this. Objective truth means that if something is true, it is true for all no matter what. There has never and will never be an exception to the fact that truth is objective.

    WTF?
     
  11. disease Banned Banned

    Messages:
    657
    But there's this:

    It's true that I can speak French. It's also true that my sister doesn't, so if I speak to her in French and explain how I can speak French, in French, it won't be true for my sister. She won't have the same, um, subjective reality as mine.
     

Share This Page