I'm not sure what frank is referring to here. So, I'm in the dark too.

[Chiropractic Medicine is] glorified massage. If lawyers didn't need a way to "medically" document and treat subjective complaints of injury from car wrecks, there'd be no chiropractors. — Hanover

Shoutbox.

Patients have complaints, which are subjective (statements). Thus when Sam26 says "I like orange juice", it is a statement about the person making the statement. When Sam26's lawyer says "Sam26 likes orange juice", it is not a statement about the person making the statement, and at least purports to be objective. As such, we can consider his wife's testimony that he never drinks orange juice home to be significant. It may become less significant in the light of his lover's claim that his wife always buys cheap concentrate, and what he likes is fresh orange juice with juicy bits. And so on.

Well there is a sense at least in which all truths are dependent on minds, to the extent that truth is a property of propositions, and propositions need proposers. I think you need stronger term than 'dependent on' - would you say that subjective truths are about (states of) mind? But even then, one can establish beyond reasonable doubt mens rea in a court of law. — unenlightened

Talk about truths or facts is dependent on minds, and thus language is also mind dependent. However, the fact in reality is separate from the concept fact, and it's separate from talk about those facts. Thus, objective facts, i.e., the existence of objective facts are not mind dependent in the sense that they can still obtain whether we have the concepts or language to refer to them. So in that sense they are not dependent on minds, they can have their existence quite apart from minds. There is a sense where everything may be dependent on minds or consciousness, but that will take us far afield. This has more to do with my metaphysics.

Subjective truths are about propositions, and how we use them in relation to our mind. I'm not saying that meaning is derived from something in the mind, only that there is a connection, maybe causal, between subjective truths and minds.

However, the fact in reality is separate from the concept fact, and it's separate from talk about those facts. — Sam26

Can you give an example of a fact in realty that is not a conceptual fact?

If earths and moons ceased to exist, truths about earths and moons would cease to exist. If Sam did not exist, he would not have likes - what's the difference? — unenlightened

The moons and stars are not value judgments.

I'm still saddened that nobody has agreed that the objective-subjective divide is actually a version of the Sorites Paradox...

Can you give an example of a fact in realty that is not a conceptual fact? — T Clark

For us to talk about the facts (states-of-affairs) we need the concepts, but the existence of facts are not dependent on the concepts, they're only dependent on the concepts if we are to talk about the facts. Any existent thing is separate from the concept used to refer to it, so the fact that the Earth has one moon is separate from anything conceptual. So I think the confusion can be in our talk about facts, verses the thing itself.

Objectivity does not exist as it is entirely dependent upon subjectivity, which itself is rather dubious,as it must first presume the self to be an object.

I can kind of see it, but there's a difference too. It's not quite a heap, but there are criteria in play. I think the Sorites paradox would apply only if you were able to fashion objective-subjective as a kind of continuum -- where at one end you had the most objective knowledge and at the other you had the most subjective knowledge, and everything else somehow fell in-between. But what would define the poles in such a way that it would apply to all knowledge?

And then wouldn't we actually be using the dichotomy as opposed to dropping it?

No, the whole point is that the predicates "objective" and "subjective" are undefinable. Hence, the paradox of treating them as definitions for things or objects or mental states and so on.

And then wouldn't we actually be using the dichotomy as opposed to dropping it? — Moliere

No, we just do away with the dichotomy altogether and talk about criteria for establishing knowledge, some are better than others (criteria); but, aren't defined as being either subjective or objective.

For us to talk about the facts (states-of-affairs) we need the concepts, but the existence of facts are not dependent on the concepts, they're only dependent on the concepts if we are to talk about the facts. Any existent thing is separate from the concept used to refer to it, so the fact that the Earth has one moon is separate from anything conceptual. So I think the confusion can be in our talk about facts, verses the thing itself. — Sam26

I think the Earth/Moon example is a bad one. Twenty years ago there were, objectively, nine planets circling the sun. Now there are eight. Nothing physical has changed. The states-of-affairs haven't changed. "States-of-affairs" is itself a concept. The way we break up the world into conceptualizable packages is a construct of our minds. The universe does not break itself up into pieces, we do it.

I'm still saddened that nobody has agreed that the objective-subjective divide is actually a version of the Sorites Paradox... — Posty McPostface

I don't know if I agree, but I think I know what you are talking about. Doesn't it all come down to how we break the world up? The paradox, if it is one, just recognizes the vagueness of the way we conceptualize things.

I don't know if I agree, but I think I know what you are talking about. Doesn't it all come down to how we break the world up? — T Clark

Yeah, that depends on the criteria we're using to make sense of the world.

The paradox, if it is one, just recognizes the vagueness of the way we conceptualize things. — T Clark

Here is the Sorites Paradox with me adding the pertinent points that I raised to illustrate the point raised in the OP:

The sorites paradox sometimes known as the paradox of the heap) is a paradox that arises from vague predicates.[2] A typical formulation involves a heap of sand (knowledge), from which grains are individually removed (evaluating). Under the assumption that removing a single grain does not turn a heap into a non-heap (determining the objective from subjective), the paradox is to consider what happens when the process is repeated enough times: is a single remaining grain still a heap (problem of delineation between the objective and subjective)? If not, when did it change from a heap to a non-heap?(how do we know when we are being objective as opposed to subjective?) — Wiki

The bolding is my doing.

The bolding is my doing. — Posty McPostface

I guess for me, the answer is that it became a heap when we called it one and stopped when we stopped. Clark's Rule 574 - a heap must have at least 5 levels of the things it is a heap of piled on top of each other. Fewer than that, and it's just some stuff.

Imagine that we're in some sort of multi-dimensional dreamworld. We speak of things beyond the horizon. Upon waking up we would realize that the dreamworld is not independent of us. It doesn't just keep going once we wake.

The above is narrated in 3rd person. It's an obective account. No matter how you might revise it to make it closer to what you believe, it's still going to be spoken from an objective vantage point.

Whoever says that we can meaningfully escape that objective voice is crazy. We can analyze and imagine a pre-reflective state, but that's more objective story telling. We can't escape it unless we stop thinking (and fall back into unity with the world.)

what does that even mean? — Posty McPostface

All you are asking is "how is it used?". And as you can see from this thread, it is used in a variety of ways.

Problems tend to occur when someone says that theirs way is the only way; or that your way is actually their way.

Again, examples abound throughout this very thread.

Then there is that weird argument, seemingly too silly to state out loud but implied in many a post, that because definitions are just more words, all there is, is words.

How about criteria Banno?

I seem to have fixated on that term to describe what one or more consider something as objective or subjective?

Thanks for taking time to help us out here.

criteria Banning — Posty McPostface

Hu?

Sorry, auto-correct changed "Banno" to "Banning" on my phone. Fixed it on my computer. lol

To set out criteria is to restrict use.

A better idea might be to use a dictionary - one on historical principles, that is descriptive rather than proscriptive.

To set out criteria is to restrict use. — Banno

That doesn't mean that the criteria cannot be changed or amended, much like a constitution. If there's no criteria then nothing meaningful can be said and anything goes.

Whoever says that we can meaningfully escape that objective voice is crazy. We can analyze and imagine a pre-reflective state, but that's more objective story telling. We can't escape it unless we stop thinking (and fall back into unity with the world.) — frank

I'm surprised you say that. You started the Daily Tao thread. What did you think Lao Tzu was talking about? He was not playing games. He meant what he said.

Get off your high Mongolian horse. :razz: The TTC is expressed in 3rd person.

The TTC is expressed in 3rd person. — frank

It says "The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao," in third person. It speaks the unspeakable in third person. If you're speaking the unspeakable, does it matter what person you're using?

The Tao is not a metaphor. This ain't no party. This ain't no disco. This ain't no foolin around.

If there's no criteria then nothing meaningful can be said. — Posty McPostface

Why?

*hands over the reigns of this thread to Banno*

Because we need a set of rules and principles to delineate between what is the realm of bias, opinion, and such to that of the real, the "objective". Hypothesis testing just requires that.

When one conducts an experiment or a drug trial it is usually double-blinded or even triple blinded for a reason. Then there are levels of sigma to delineate chance from occurring in an experiment. Just in the recent case of discovering the Higgs boson, a level of probability of 5-sigma was required to assure that the experiment was not up to chance.

Must I go on further?

If you're speaking the unspeakable, does it matter what person you're using? — T Clark

:meh:

*hands over the reigns of this thread to Banno* — Posty McPostface

No, thanks. Been there, done that.

Sorry to hear. :sad: