How can you really define the distinction between objective and subjective if we only ever are subjective. — intrapersona
Even while our experience might be wholly subjective in any sense of the word, there are still consistencies within and between our experiences. The sun will rise tomorrow is a belief held by all humans because of a very strong cumulative argument (inductive reasoning) coming from our experience of it rising each day — VagabondSpectre
The problem here is that the sun really doesn't rise. The scientific explanation of this phenomenon, the illusion that the sun rises day after day, is that the earth is actually spinning. The sun is really not doing anything in this scenario, therefore it is actually false to say that the sun rises. — Metaphysician Undercover
Despite the fact that many human beings might say that they belief that the sun will rise tomorrow, I don't think that they really believe that the sun will do any such thing. — Metaphysician Undercover
While "the sun will rise tomorrow because it has risen every day that I can remember" — VagabondSpectre
But in order to "confirm" any given hypothesis, scientifically speaking, and thereby make it "an objective scientific fact", what we must do is be able to confirm it through experiment (not being able to prove it wrong essentially) with adequate accuracy, precision and repeatability. — VagabondSpectre
How can you really define the distinction between objective and subjective if we only ever are subjective.
The objective world remains only ever an inference at best. — intrapersona
How can you define "subjective" without implying the existence of the objective? If there is no view, or perspective, then there is no subjectivity. If there isn't any more than what exists "subjectively", then what you define as subjective is really the objective because you are saying that what you "experience" is all there is, but then that means "experience" and "you" need to be redefined as well - redefined out of existence. — Harry Hindu
don't see why this means that the sun doesn't rise. If I say that you're sitting to the left of someone else, is what I say false because, from some other perspective, this would be the wrong thing to say? — Michael
The "sun rising" every day is a great example of a strong cumulative argument.which requires very minimal technical or absolute depth in reasoning or understanding yet which delivers as reliably as any science what it promises; predictive power from experience. This is not a scientific argument, but it does delineate, albieit primitively, the logical shape that scientific theories set out to take. — VagabondSpectre
But in order to "confirm" any given hypothesis, scientifically speaking, and thereby make it "an objective scientific fact", what we must do is be able to confirm it through experiment (not being able to prove it wrong essentially) with adequate accuracy, precision and repeatability. — VagabondSpectre
I guess one way of putting it is that the answer to lacking ultimate and absolute certainty is to instead of seeking to firmly arrive at it, we can seek to approach it by continuously reinforcing what we do know until the remaining doubt regarding specific truths becomes negligible in every respect. — VagabondSpectre
That is not at all analogous. "The sun rises" implies that the sun is involved in an activity, rising. But it is false to say that the sun is what is active in such an activity, the activity here is an act of the earth spinning. To employ a principle of relativity, and claim that the earth spinning is actually the very same thing as the sun rising betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of reality because it places the principle of activity within the sun rather than the earth. From this perspective, things far away from earth would be moving faster than the speed of light in their rising and setting. — Metaphysician Undercover
Just as it's not a metaphor when I (correctly) say "I'm not moving" while standing still, despite the fact that I'm hurtling through the universe at hundreds of kilometers a second. — Michael
Well your example,"it's pissing it down" was clearly metaphorical. — Metaphysician Undercover
So how is it objectively true that you are not moving while you are hurtling through the universe at hundreds of kilometres a second?
It seems like there's a major increase in idealists/should-be-solipsists-if-you're-to-be-consistent folks running around on philosophy forums lately . . . or is it just one or two guys with a bunch of sock accounts?How can you really define the distinction between objective and subjective if we only ever are subjective.
The objective world remains only ever an inference at best. — intrapersona
Because the movement of the Earth in space is irrelevant to the meaning (and so truth) of the statement. — Michael
If you were sitting in a car which is driving on the highway, and you were keeping still, would you say that the movement of the car is irrelevant to the truth or falsity of your statement "I am not moving"? — Metaphysician Undercover
That may be your claim, and you can assert it all you like, but unless you qualify your statement to indicate this, I really don't see how your assertion could be true.
We can observe the objective world. — Terrapin Station
No. I mean that, for example, I'm observing my kindle right now as I type this. — Terrapin Station
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.