Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[LuckyR]

The point is that different people don't consider their truth an opinion but as a universal truth valid and applicable to everything and everyone. And we are taught that there is just one such truth. But why there can't be more? Not as some new overarching truth but just different ones. In old Greece it was once defined as the only one for all. Which it is. But this only one depends on who you ask about it. Its hard to imagine, I know, but that's because our brains are prepared to think in only one truth.

The fact that different people have different interpretations of a universal truth, doesn't mean that that particular truth isn't universal.

If I drop an apple it falls to the floor, we're all in agreement. The theory of gravity is one possible explanation for the observation.

Humans descended from earlier life forms. The theory of evolution is one possible explanation of the mechanism of how.

[Raymond]

"The fact that different people have different interpretations of a universal truth, doesn't mean that that particular truth isn't universal."

I think the different interpretations are the different universal truths. It's all we have. I don't believe in the idea of one ultimate objective reality. Which doesn't mean I don't have my own idea about one. And which also doesn't mean I use that to justify that idea of mine. I adjust that idea often.

[Pattern-chaser]

The point is that different people don't consider their truth an opinion but as a universal truth valid and applicable to everything and everyone. And we are taught that there is just one such truth. But why there can't be more? Not as some new overarching truth but just different ones. In old Greece it was once defined as the only one for all. Which it is. But this only one depends on who you ask about it. Its hard to imagine, I know, but that's because our brains are prepared to think in only one truth.

The fact that different people have different interpretations of a universal truth, doesn't mean that that particular truth isn't universal.

Agreed. But I wonder about the thought that we all label our own opinions as 'absolute', 'universal' or 'objective'? I don't. To do so is a meaningless and arrogant conceit, isn't it? When such a thought is quite unverifiable, and not falsifiable either, we are left with a strong feeling that the person identifying their opinions with objectivity is deceitfully trying to shore up those ideas with the absolute and unchallengeable authority of Objectivity.

[Pattern-chaser]

I don't believe in the idea of one ultimate objective reality.

Doesn't that make you an extreme Subjectivist, alongside solipsists, and the like? If you deny the existence of a reality that actually is, independent of our thoughts, beliefs or opinions, what is there to put in its place? This is not sarcasm, this is an extended question; I'd like to know.

[Raymond]

The point is that different people don't consider their truth an opinion but as a universal truth valid and applicable to everything and everyone. And we are taught that there is just one such truth. But why there can't be more? Not as some new overarching truth but just different ones. In old Greece it was once defined as the only one for all. Which it is. But this only one depends on who you ask about it. Its hard to imagine, I know, but that's because our brains are prepared to think in only one truth.

Why would that be arrogant? As long as you respect that the others have their objective truth there is nothing wrong. And as long as you don't consider your objective truth as a serious issue, then fundamentalism stays at bay. Is there nothing you consider as objectively true?

The fact that different people have different interpretations of a universal truth, doesn't mean that that particular truth isn't universal.

Agreed. But I wonder about the thought that we all label our own opinions as 'absolute', 'universal' or 'objective'? I don't. To do so is a meaningless and arrogant conceit, isn't it? When such a thought is quite unverifiable, and not falsifiable either, we are left with a strong feeling that the person identifying their opinions with objectivity is deceitfully trying to shore up those ideas with the absolute and unchallengeable authority of Objectivity.

[Pattern-chaser]

Is there nothing you consider as objectively true?

That Objective Reality exists, and I am all or part of it. Nothing more than this can be (Objectively) known by any human being.

This illustrates why Objectivity is so useless. It's an academic fantasy. Sure, we can conceive of 'that which actually is', as a theoretical concept. But we can't perceive it; we have no direct access to it. Even though we live in it. So all of our thoughts about what might be Objectively true are just idle fantasies; intellectual masturbation. We have that one Objective fact that we can rely on; all else is wishful thinking.

That how life is for us humans. It's not the best we could've hoped for, but it's what we have. And so uncertainty is a central issue in our thinking, or it should be. If it isn't, we might fall victim to the common fallacy of believing our own opinions are founded and reliable. They aren't.

[Raymond]

Is there nothing you consider as objectively true?

That Objective Reality exists, and I am all or part of it. Nothing more than this can be (Objectively) known by any human being.

This illustrates why Objectivity is so useless. It's an academic fantasy. Sure, we can conceive of 'that which actually is', as a theoretical concept. But we can't perceive it; we have no direct access to it. Even though we live in it. So all of our thoughts about what might be Objectively true are just idle fantasies; intellectual masturbation. We have that one Objective fact that we can rely on; all else is wishful thinking.

That how life is for us humans. It's not the best we could've hoped for, but it's what we have. And so uncertainty is a central issue in our thinking, or it should be. If it isn't, we might fall victim to the common fallacy of believing our own opinions are founded and reliable. They aren't.

So you consider it objectively true that an objective reality exists? That's an opinion. And opinions are subject bound. It's your idea of an objective reality. And that objective reality can't be known, according to your conception of it.

I don't think this opinion is very fruitful. If you think all our conceptions of reality are just conceptions than the idea of an objective reality becomes meaningless. I think everybody's or every group's objective reality are equally real. What would my objective reality matter if it was just an opinion?

[Sculptor1]

Where is the objectivity here?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-s5szfPYKY4&t=1061s
Wizz through to 26 minutes and reflect upon 1000+ studies that exonerate sugar as a cause of diabetes.

I'd recommend watching the whole video if you have time, it could save your life.

[Raymond]

I had the same experience on a Dutch physics forum. A farmer observed strange behavior of his cows after they moved in their new stable. He asked if it could have to do with the Earth's magnetic field. I collected some articles from the web and gave a link. I adviced to take two cows out and keep the food and drink the same. But already suggesting the magnetic field and the behavior of the cows were connected got my answers deleted. Now thats prejudice. Can you imagine? In science that claims to be objective..

[Pattern-chaser]

Is there nothing you consider as objectively true?

That Objective Reality exists, and I am all or part of it. Nothing more than this can be (Objectively) known by any human being.

This illustrates why Objectivity is so useless. It's an academic fantasy. Sure, we can conceive of 'that which actually is', as a theoretical concept. But we can't perceive it; we have no direct access to it. Even though we live in it. So all of our thoughts about what might be Objectively true are just idle fantasies; intellectual masturbation. We have that one Objective fact that we can rely on; all else is wishful thinking.

That how life is for us humans. It's not the best we could've hoped for, but it's what we have. And so uncertainty is a central issue in our thinking, or it should be. If it isn't, we might fall victim to the common fallacy of believing our own opinions are founded and reliable. They aren't.

So you consider it objectively true that an objective reality exists?

Yes.

That's an opinion.

Ah, but that's the thing about Objectivity. Opinions aren't be Objective (except by accident or coincidence).

Via Descartes' Cogito, each one of us is able to determine that something exists Objectively. And if something exists (Objectively), then Objective Reality exists, and that something is all or part of it. I can follow this chain of reasoning. I cannot transfer my knowledge of its 'Objectivity' to you ... but if you follow the same chain of reasoning yourself, you will also be able to verify (Objectively) the existence of Objective Reality.

N.B. Objective Reality is that which actually is, independent of the wishes, beliefs, or opinions of any entity.

And opinions are subject bound. It's your idea of an objective reality. And that objective reality can't be known, according to your conception of it.

It is incorrect to refer to "an objective reality". There can be only one, as they say. There is only one Objective Reality.

The only piece of Objective knowledge that a human can knowingly possess is that Objective Reality exists. All else is speculation that does not and can not meet the standards of Objectivity. So yes, you are right to say that no detail, property, or aspect of Objective Reality can be known to a human, save only the fact of its existence.

And this, as you clearly see, is the downfall of Objectivity; the thing that makes it a complete waste of time. For even if we speculate about it, our speculations cannot meet any Objective standard, so they have no Objective validity. All this stuff about Objectivity is childishly easy to understand, but in the end it describes something that is, and will always be, inaccessible to humans. So whatever we say about it is merely opinion, an opinion that is not supported, or even affected, by a claim that it is "Objective". For any such claim is automatically incorrect. It can be nothing else, when it is absolutely and completely impossible for a human being to confirm the Objective correctness of anything at all.

And all that is why, so many posts ago, I challenged your use of the term "objective". The term has no use at all, except to confuse and mislead those with whom you are trying to communicate, if that should be your intent.

I don't think this opinion is very fruitful. If you think all our conceptions of reality are just conceptions than the idea of an objective reality becomes meaningless. I think everybody's or every group's objective reality are equally real. What would my objective reality matter if it was just an opinion?

That's pretty much it. Except that I might've said "I think everybody's or every group's 'objective reality' are equally unreal, just as they are wholly unfounded, unsubstantiated and so forth."

[Raymond]

"It is incorrect to refer to "an objective reality". There can be only one, as they say. There is only one Objective Reality."

That's the idea of which I think it's an opinion. The idea introduced and developed further in ancient Greece (well, maybe the idea was there already, but the first writings appearedthen, I think(?)). Xenophanes introduced the one and only Omni SuperGod, and Plato his mathematical heaven. The idea forms the base of modern scientific thinking, which has its roots indeed in ancient Greece. The standard view is that this reality can never be reached but certainly appropriated, like the math heaven of Plato only throws shadows which are a good approximation, the approximation being math (in Plato's approach).

the idea can be criticized. Of course it's a good idea in the scientific context (like I said, a particle physicist likes to hunt for real particles) but to consider scientific reality the only one is dangerous. That's why it's better and more humane to consider all realities, all stories, objective. And to see them just like that. Stories. Narratives, if you like. Which is not to say that every story is true, of course not. It sounds somewhat confusing but that's because it is confusing.

[Pattern-chaser]

That's why it's better and more humane to consider all realities, all stories, objective.

No! It's not your ideas that mislead, it's your insistence on using a meaningless term, that is nevertheless assumed by most to denote universality, and is not subject to any form of challenge or doubt. By using that term, you attempt to endow your opinions with the iron-clad correctness of Objectivity, which is invalid and misleading.

[Pattern-chaser]

That's why it's better and more humane to consider all realities, all stories, objective.

No! It's not your ideas that mislead, it's your insistence on using a meaningless term, that is nevertheless assumed by most to denote universality, and is not subject to any form of challenge or doubt. By using that term, you attempt to endow your opinions with the iron-clad correctness of Objectivity, which is invalid and misleading.

P.S. Let's remember that this topic considers science, and asks whether it is "objective". Thus a careful consideration of what the term means is entirely appropriate here. And any of us that use the term unusually needs to clarify that, if they are to be understood.

Consider:

'Everyday' statements can have many possible truth-values - TRUE, FALSE, MAYBE, POSSIBLY, and so on.
Binary statements have two possible truth-values - TRUE or FALSE.
Objective statements can have only one truth-value - TRUE. They are not subject to doubt or challenge, because they cannot, under any circumstances, be wrong.

[Raymond]

That's why it's better and more humane to consider all realities, all stories, objective.

No! It's not your ideas that mislead, it's your insistence on using a meaningless term, that is nevertheless assumed by most to denote universality, and is not subject to any form of challenge or doubt. By using that term, you attempt to endow your opinions with the iron-clad correctness of Objectivity, which is invalid and misleading.

If reality forces me to change my opinions I will. I don't try to endow them with the "iron-clad correctness of objectivity". My opinion is reality-based.

[Raymond]

"P.S. Let's remember that this topic considers science, and asks whether it is "objective". Thus a careful consideration of what the term means is entirely appropriate here. And any of us that use the term unusually needs to clarify that, if they are to be understood."

Science is objective by definition. The things you investigate in the lab are objectively there. It are no hallucinations, though these can certainly be involved.