nationalism, moral objectivity, populism, anthropocentrism, rationalism, religion, and political ideology.
— Kenosha Kid
Two of these things are not like the others. — Pfhorrest
In Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels With Science (1994), the scientists Paul R. Gross and Norman Levitt accused postmodernists of anti-intellectualism, presented the shortcomings of relativism, and suggested that postmodernists knew little about the scientific theories they criticized and practiced poor scholarship for political reasons. The authors insist that the "science critics" misunderstood the theoretical approaches they criticized, given their "caricature, misreading, and condescension, [rather] than argument".
Can you explain how we arrive at "objective truth", whatever that is? — Adam's Off Ox
The scientific method, followed by conventional history, seems to be the closest process by which we arrive at "objective truth", and whatever that is, it is at most a relativistic approximation. — Merkwurdichliebe
Would you be willing to offer more understanding of how you use the word 'relativistic'? I'm familiar with 'subjective'. Do you intend the two words as synonyms — Adam's Off Ox
Are you saying objective truth doesn't exist?
— tilda-psychist
Can you explain how we arrive at "objective truth", whatever that is? — Adam's Off Ox
But you agree then, we never know the truth — we only arrive at an approximation? — Adam's Off Ox
But you agree then, we never know the truth — we only arrive at an approximation — Adam's Off Ox
...as such it has no relation to life — Merkwurdichliebe
2 + 2 is definitely equal to 4 — tilda-psychist
mathematical truth is purely conceptual, as such it has no relation to life and hence no objective actuality, which means nothing can be apprehended as an objective truth through pure mathematical deliberation (if there is such a thing). — Merkwurdichliebe
2 + 2 is definitely equal to 4
— tilda-psychist
With respect to chosen mathematical axioms. I can give you an axiomatic mathematics in which 2+2=4 is unjustified.
1. There does not exist an empty set 0={}.
2. Etc. — Kenosha Kid
is wrong.mathematical truth is purely conceptual, as such it has no relation to life — Merkwurdichliebe
↪tilda-psychist ...showing how
mathematical truth is purely conceptual, as such it has no relation to life
— Merkwurdichliebe
is wrong. — Banno
it ain't nothing but a heart-breaker
(PoMo) friend only to the undertaker
Oh, PoMo it's an enemy to all mankind
The point of PoMo blows my mind
PoMo has caused unrest
Within the younger generation
Induction then destruction
Who wants to die, ah, PoMo-huh, good god…
The quickest way to become irrational is to reject the idea that objective truth exists. I'm sure i'll be accused of being irrational for whatever reason. — tilda-psychist
I didn't see you respond to someone else in this way. I would have to argue we are in agreement not disagreement. Once again i only replied to your reply to me. I didn't see all the posts that were posted — tilda-psychist
The quickest way to become irrational is to reject the idea that objective truth exists. I'm sure i'll be accused of being irrational for whatever reason.
— tilda-psychist
I find you to be rational here. I think that for a postmodernist, rationality is not a requirement though.
I didn't see you respond to someone else in this way. I would have to argue we are in agreement not disagreement. Once again i only replied to your reply to me. I didn't see all the posts that were posted
— tilda-psychist
So if we never know the truth, exactly, what value is there in saying it is objective?
I'll explain my view a little further. I consider the things that we call true to be sentences. If you are saying something is true, you are referring to a sentence or text or model.
And when it comes to the sentence, we only compare the symbols of the sentence to some other phenomenal experience. We say the sentence is true because it jibes with experience. But then the true-ness is not a relationship with the thing-in-itself. We never arrive at noumena.
Now, you may say that you and I experience the same underlying thing, but that goes beyond what we can know. We don't even know we have the same experience of phenomena. All we have are the shared sentences that come between us.
But shared sentences with unverifiable phenomena or noumena are not a model for objectivity. We are merely comparing subjective experience. Here the term intersubjectivity better describes what we are modeling. We have to leave objectivity as unnattainable or at least unknowable.
I don't say "There is no objective truth," but rather just avoid using the word objective, where intersubjective is really what is happening. We can leave the discussion of the terms "There is" and "truth" for another time. — Adam's Off Ox
...we only compare the symbols of the sentence to some other phenomenal experience. — Adam's Off Ox
Now, you may say that you and I experience the same underlying thing, but that goes beyond what we can know. We don't even know we have the same experience of phenomena. All we have are the shared sentences that come between us. — Adam's Off Ox
We are merely comparing subjective experience. Here the term intersubjectivity better describes what we are modeling. We have to leave objectivity as unnattainable or at least unknowable. — Adam's Off Ox
What phenomenal experience do we compare "and" to?
What about "why?", or "Hello", or "autocratic"?
Indeed, it seems that most words do not work in this way — Banno
The funny thing is that we overwhelmingly agree on which sentences are true and which are false. It's as if we shared a world about which we are speaking... Or better, we are embedded in the world. — Banno
I think where we disagree is whether or not absolutely everything can be quantified including human personalities. — tilda-psychist
I think where we disagree is whether or not absolutely everything can be quantified including human personalities.
— tilda-psychist
I do disagree that everything can be quantified. How much do I love my daughter? How good is sex?
What is the likelihood my wife is angry tomorrow? What number measures her anger.
I don't believe mathematical models provide the same descriptions as qualitative observations.
Your post is 217.9134 true. — Adam's Off Ox
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.