If a thousand people witness something; the individual witness accounts are still subjective, aren't they.

Even if it is a thousand astronomers that confirm that there has been a supernova in a distant galaxy, or a closer supernovae that is viewable to most people on Earth.

At no point is there any objective evidence that there has been an event, all witness accounts are subjective and subject to individual perception processes. — wax

Yes, everyone of us uses our own brain, so thus everything is subjective? Think about it this way:

If one astronomer finds a supernova in the sky, but nobody else doesn't, what is the probability that the astronomer has made a misinterpretation of the data or has done (or the machine has done) a measurement error?

Then on the other hand, if a thousand astronomers claim to have spotted a supernova in the sky, what is the probability of everyone of them making simultaneously a similar mistake?

There is some claim to Popper's falsifiability.

Then again, if we really assume they're all wrong, that perhaps what they have witnessed is an extremely rare event in astronomy, which might look like a supernova, but hasn't anything to do with it, then you need a better explanatory model, a scientific paradigm shift perhaps, to show that it wasn't actually a supernova. Even that doesn't go against objectivity. Science advances when we discover that we have had bad premises.

What I don't like is that some people take the utilitarian and pragmatic view of 'objectivity' in science and roll it out to other arguments to try to show that there is a more absolute objective perception of reality that is possible...

That isn't logical.

What I don't like is that some people take the utilitarian and pragmatic view of 'objectivity' in science and roll it out to other arguments to try to show that there is a more absolute objective perception of reality that is possible...

That isn't logical. — wax

Well, many use 'science' and 'scientific' as an argument where it shouldn't be used. Scientism is the best example of this misuse or improper use of science or scientific claims. Usually it comes out of ignorance about the subject at hand.

Well, many use 'science' and 'scientific' as an argument where it shouldn't be used. Scientism is the best example of this misuse or improper use of science or scientific claims. Usually it comes out of ignorance about the subject at hand. — ssu

yes, if I used my argument about the supernova then the person I am trying to counter would just claims that my argument is 'absurd'...it is only absurd in that if a supernova happened in this way in real life, then nobody would really question it...but I wouldn't be using that argument as a way to show that it would happen, but just as an analogy.

yes, if I used my argument about the supernova then the person I am trying to counter would just claims that my argument is 'absurd'...it is only absurd in that if a supernova happened in this way in real life, then nobody would really question it...but I wouldn't be using that argument as a way to show that it would happen, but just as an analogy. — wax

Not sure what your point is here. Can you explain in other words?

Not sure what your point is here. Can you explain in other words? — ssu

well, I was just reiterating what I said earlier, really.

A person might be trying to claim that there is an actual objective way to view reality.

And I give an extreme example that a supernova viewed by thousands of scientists, still leads to an subjective view that the supernova happened.

And the other person seems to make an appeal to common sense, and say that no body would question that the supernova had taken place, or at least something took place that looked like a supernova, and they use this appeal to common sense to justify that it was possible to have an absolute objective view of reality if enough people formed consensus about what was witnessed..

Then the mistake is to think that we can reach 'an absolute objective view of reality'. We cannot do that. Yet denying 'absolute objective reality' surely doesn't mean that we then have retreat to something as silly as solipsism. We can see things in a different light perhaps later, yes, but that doesn't undermine everything.

Using the scientific method is an effort at finding an objective view/interpretation/model of reality.

if someone considered them selves a solipsist then I would probably assume that they prefer abstract logic as a way to view reality, rather than base their view of reality on how they really feel about it, and be honest with themselves, about how they view other people for instance.
The the situation is similar in those who end up believing that there is no such thing as 'free will'.....and I struggled with that for a long time....the best way out of that trap is just to be honest with yourself, and ask yourself if you 'feel' like to have choices in the world, and that you can freely make those choices to some extent.

If a thousand people see something and tell you about it, you must interpret whether a thousand people seeing the same thing means it happened or not. If you say yes, it's an epistemological argument you're making just as if you say no. So it is subjective and people need to make up their own minds about what degree of belief about what is true, based on what evidence they have.

It's a distinction that is much misused and misunderstood. The argument you are making is to my mind almost as misguided as your opponents' position.To claim that everything is subjective is simply to make the distinction meaningless and deprive us of a couple of words.

I prefer to look straightforwardly at what it can usefully distinguish and use it that way. That which is subjective is, to put it very crudely 'stuff about me' and that which is objective is 'stuff about the world'.
So, that cheddar is the best cheese is down to my own taste, and is subjective, whereas that cheddar is made from cows' milk is objective.

If you claim that brie is the best cheese, because it is subjective, and the subject changes with the speaker, there is no disagreement, no contradiction. Whereas if you claim that cheddar is made from chalk, one of us is wrong. It's a very useful distinction for philosophers as it tells them what is worth disputing.

Either there has been a supernova, or there has not. That is objective, and not a matter of opinion. If one person claims to have seen a supernova, we don't exactly know, because people can be mistaken whether there is an objective supernova or a subjective mistake. But it is the agreement of others that convinces us that the supernova is objective, precisely because what is subjective we do not usually agree on.

yes, I realise there has to be an actual useful definition of 'objective' and 'subjective', and they can be useful concepts.
But you mentioned

Either there has been a supernova, or there has not. That is objective, and not a matter of opinion. — unenlightened

But how would we know whether there had been or not, without some evidence?
What does it mean for a supernova to have happened in an objective way?
This is the crux really. I don't believe that absolute objectivity can really exist, not even for God...but people seem to conclude that there is via a sort of common sense line of thinking...

But how would we know whether there had been or not, without some evidence?
What does it mean for a supernova to have happened in an objective way?
This is the crux really. I don't believe that absolute objectivity can really exist, not even for God...but people seem to conclude that there is via a sort of common sense line of thinking... — wax

A supernova doesn't happen in an objective or a subjective way, and it means nothing because it is a misuse of language. A supernova is an object. Experience is evidence.

Where did that 'absolute' come from? What meaning does it have in this context? 'Absolute' is a word I cannot find a use for in this context.

You talk about what you believe can and cannot exist - "absolute objectivity"; what you believe is something about you, and subjective, but what exists is something about the world and objective, so you are just speaking in a muddled way of your subjective take on the objectivity of objectivity.
And since it is your subjective belief, I cannot even disagree, but will simply say, I prefer not to think like that.

If a thousand people witness something; the individual witness accounts are still subjective, aren't they. — wax

Yes. One of the most common misunderstandings of the subjective/objective distinction is the belief that it has something to do with disagreement and agreement. The distinction doesn't have anything to do with that. And the belief that it does, especially when accompanied by a normative attraction to the objective side, as it almost always is, is a reflection of a tendency for folks to accept the argumentum ad populum fallacy.

It's important to stress here that the distinction only has to do with whether something occurs mentally or not. It's not an implied judgment about the comparative value of anything or anything else like that.

At no point is there any objective evidence that there has been an event, — wax

That I don't agree with, but the disagreement is about the term "evidence." Some people see that term as necessarily epistemological. I don't. And I don't believe that it's commonly used that way. The term is ontological. Evidence exists whether we're aware of it or not. That's why we search for evidence, we discover evidence, we collect evidence, etc. Those phrases wouldn't make any sense if we only used the term epistemically. We can't discover something that we create and that doesn't obtain objectively. We create/construct it instead. So "evidence" is commonly used simply to refer to the objective properties of things, direct or indirect.

Where did that 'absolute' come from? What meaning does it have in this context? 'Absolute' is a word I cannot find a use for in this context. — unenlightened

I know..

If the only definition that is possible for 'objective reality' is that which comes by forming a consensus of what happened with other people, then that's just how it is.

How is any other definition of 'objective reality' possible?

How is any other definition of 'objective reality' possible? — wax

Well now you are using 'objective' in the same way you were using 'absolute' before. Are there different kinds of reality? Different grades? Really real reality, and maybe-waybe reality?

Well now you are using 'objective' in the same way you were using 'absolute' before. Are there different kinds of reality? Different grades? Really real reality, and maybe-waybe reality? — unenlightened

no in that post I didn't use the word 'objective' to mean anything in particular. I was just asking for any other ways in which 'objective reality' could be defined, and what 'objective reality'' would mean then.

no in that post I didn't use the word 'objective' to mean anything in particular. I was just asking for any other ways in which 'objective reality' could be defined, and what 'objective reality'' would mean then. — wax

That is what I'm complaining about; that you use words without any meaning and then ask someone else to make sense of them. To define 'objective reality would be to distinguish it from another kind of reality 'subjective reality' or 'non-objective reality'. I say that is an abuse of language and can only lead to confusion - so don't do it. Try keeping the distinction objective/subjective as applying to statements, or claims, according to their subject matter; subjective statements are about the speaker, objective statements are about the world. In the same way, a sentence is grammatical or ungrammatical, and one does not try to define 'grammatical reality' or 'a grammatical cow'.

people might use the term 'objective reality'; I was just asking if anyone might post what they thought would be a good definition for that term.

Don't worry, you are making me consider my use of the term 'objective', and whether I have been using it in any really useful way, by saying I don't believe in an objective reality.

people might use the term 'objective reality'; I was just asking if anyone might post what they thought would be a good definition for that term. — wax

subjective = mental
objective = extramental, or the complement of mental (in other words, everything else)

"Objective reality" - reality aside from minds/mental activity

I thought you just responded positively that agreement doesn't give anything more normative weight.

Re "shared mental," shared in what sense?

Don't worry, you are making me consider my use of the term 'objective', and whether I have been using it in any really useful way, by saying I don't believe in an objective reality. — wax

If you are going astray, you are in good company. Wittgenstein suggests that philosophy almost entirely consists of such muddles. It might be worth your while struggling through the thread on his Philosophical Investigations there's a link to the text being discussed somewhere near the beginning.

To unfairly summarise his approach, he will take a term like 'reality' and ask where in ordinary life one might find an uncontroversial use for it so he might suggest we talk about a real tree as opposed to a picture of a tree. One might say, "Imagine a tree. Imagine climbing it." One can (really) climb a real tree, one can imagine climbing a real tree, one can imagine climbing an imaginary tree, but one cannot (really) climb an imaginary tree. And just from this one gets some feeling for where one can use 'real' and 'reality' and where it stops having a sensible application.

Re "shared mental," shared in what sense? — Terrapin Station

@Mr Phil O'sophy is the Borg.

I'm still not clear on what you'd mean by shared, but my view is that objective reality has nothing at all to do with agreement.

:L I'm not sure I'd say we share it as a hive mind shares an experience. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

I'm perfectly happy to say that we are sharing our thoughts on this thread.

And in another context I am just as happy to say that the mental is the subjective, is that which cannot be shared.

What I'm not happy about is the idea that 'objective reality' or 'shared experience' must have a meaning that is compounded of the separate meanings of the words that can be deuced from those meanings. People sometimes claim to be 'literally over the moon', and the one thing I am quite certain of is that they cannot mean 'literally' literally.

Or consider the title's 'Collective experience'. Context gives a sense of folks saying the same kind of thing about what they individually experience. 'You see that bright light?. Looks like a supernova to me.' 'Hmm, you could be right, I thought it was just one o' them aliens...'

But Star Trek gives it another context and a very different meaning of the privacy of thought being violated.

And I have suggested it has no meaning at all in the context of the philosophical discourse that is current.

And then someone will demand to know the 'real meaning'... and round we go again.

If a thousand people witness something; the individual witness accounts are still subjective, aren't they. — wax

Yes. Accounts are subjective; the something is objective because of the implication given by “witness”.

Subjective: that upon which reason acts.
Objective: that upon which reason reacts.

I'm referring to what objective reality is, that is, its agreement by ad populum. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

You think reality is defined by how people agree it is? Do you mean this to apply to things like rocks and buildings, such that they look a certain way or exist because people agree that they look a certain way or exist?

Subjective: that upon which reason acts.
Objective: that upon which reason reacts. — Mww

I don't know what the act/react distinction would be in the context of reason doing x to y.

Reason acts when the object is internal; reasons reacts when the object is external. In the former reason gives itself its object, in the latter perception, or more accurately, sensibility, gives reason its object. We have to be able to account for our ability to think about real things when there is no real things present to think about. Otherwise we would never be able to remember anything. Metaphysically speaking, to be sure.

Science of course, has all that handled, with neurobiology and cognitive neuroscience, and Penrose, et al, wants to add in quantum potentials and what-not. Which is fine; won’t change the common man one wit.