Reality is not subjective. Anymore than democracy is green.

Burden of proof is not on.........what.

I don’t understand your question :sweat:

Reality is not subjective. Anymore than democracy is green. — Banno

What kind of category mistake is 'reality is subjective?'

I say subjective since our perception is influenced by multiple personal factors. Our reality which we experience is personal to us then.

If all (perception and understanding of) reality is subjective then the burden of proof is not on the claimant but on the disagreer.

I seem to have made a mistake while posting.

I'm sorry I made a mistake during the posting. I've edited it now to what I meant to say.

"If all (perception and understanding of) reality is subjective then the burden of proof is not on the claimant but on the disagreer"

I understand that, I was asking Banno why not.

"If all (perception and understanding of) reality is subjective then the burden of proof is not on the claimant but on the disagreer" — New2K2

Now I understand you and yes! It is a good point. Agreed :100:

If all (perception and understanding of) reality is subjective then the burden of proof is not on the claimant but on the disagreer" — New2K2

Shouldn't that be -If all (perception and understanding of) reality is subjective then the burden of proof is no longer relevant?

Ok, thanks.

Usually the burden on the claimant, at the very least, is to show warrant in the text of the claim. Otherwise, there is naught but mere assertion.

In the case of the OP, however, by saying “if all perception and understanding.....”, no claim has been made, but merely a premise has been stated, from which a claim is to follow in the predicate of the proposition. You’ve given the “if, but not the “then”, so you haven’t claimed anything, so there is no burden for anybody.

Actually....what purpose do the parentheticals hold? What’s the difference between “if all perception and understanding of reality....” and “if all (perception and understanding of) reality....”? Either way, the conditions under which “all reality” must necessarily be taken, is exactly the same.

I agree, by the way. All perception and understanding of reality is subjective. How could it be otherwise. Doesn’t mean reality is itself subjective.

I agree, by the way. All perception and understanding of reality is subjective. How could it be otherwise. Doesn’t mean reality is itself subjective. — Mww

The statement is an objective claim about the ontology of perception and understanding, which is just another way of saying epistemology. Any time you make a statement that asserts how some state of affairs exists for all humans, not just yourself, like what perception and understanding is for all humans, you are making a objective statement.

Even stating how things are for just you is objective as you are part of this reality and any statement that is true regardless if others disagree is objective. Stating that you like strawberries is objective. It is objectively true that you like strawberries even if I were to disagree.

What is subjective is when you project qualities of yourself onto an object that has no such properties. When you say strawberries are good, you are projecting your feeling that you have when eating strawberries, not asserting anything true about the strawberries. To me strawberries are bad, but that is just a projection. Harry Hindu doesn't like strawberries is objective because I am now correctly stating that the property has more to do with me than the strawberries.

In a nutshell, subjective statements are category errors.

If all (perception and understanding of) reality is subjective then the burden of proof is not on the claimant but on the disagreer. — New2K2

But the disagreer has a subjective reality too. Which subjective reality is the disagreer disagreeing with? Ultimately they'd both be talking past each other.

The statement is an objective claim about the ontology of perception and understanding, which is just another way of saying epistemology. Any time you make a statement that asserts how some state of affairs exists for all humans, not just yourself, like what perception and understanding is for all humans, you are making a objective statement. — Harry Hindu

It is partially true that all perception and understanding of reality is subjective. Is my previous statement objective or subjective?

Edit: If all (perception and understanding of) reality is subjective then the burden of proof is not on the claimant but on the disagreer. Thoughts. — New2K2

There are subjectivist philosophies that go to the epistemological extremes; most notably, post modernism - but more generally, subjectivist philosophers do an end run around the burden of proof by asserting the - often cultural relativism of truth claims.

To my mind, it's somewhere between polite and cowardly, that in face of often quite delicate questions of race or religion - we do not bang on the objectively existing table about what we can prove, but retreat to a live and let live subjectivist relativism that has us pander to the lived experience of the least informed.

I think it's okay to tell people when they're wrong; why they're wrong, and why it must be some other way instead - but, on the other hand, even as an outspoken objectivist, I accept there is a burden of proof on me in doing so.

Any time you make a statement that asserts how some state of affairs exists for all humans (....) like what perception and understanding is for all humans, you are making a objective statement. — Harry Hindu

Point, but of questionable relevance.

Subjective statements are categorical errors, insofar as statements are technically empirical objects in the world, hence are not contained in the mind....or brain, if you wish....hence not subjective. Nevertheless, statements are themselves merely empirical manifestations of cognitive goings-on.....reason.....of the subject that creates them. The inescapable folly of language games. No statement is at all possible without the subject that creates it, so.....

I just figured it went without saying, that because perception and understanding are faculties belonging to all humans in general and thereby to each human in particular, then it follows necessarily that the objects of those faculties belongs to any human in possession of them. Which is sufficient reason to claim perception and understanding of reality, or anything at all in fact, is entirely subjective, the ontology of perception and understanding themselves, standing beside the point. They are given from the conditions of human nature, from where makes no difference. And refutable by the principle of induction, sure, but if you find a human without these faculties, no one will deny you your Nobel. (grin)

There are many people who hold firmly to an empirical(?) standpoint. In a discussion with them, their opinion of what is true/right is based on facts.

In American law, the burden of proof is on the prosecution in criminal trials - innocent until proven guilty. That isn't always the case in other jurisdictions. Who is responsible for proving a claim depends on where you are. It's a matter of convention. A procedural rule.

If all (perception and understanding of) reality is subjective then the burden of proof is not on the claimant but on the disagreer. — New2K2

Is the content of the claim irrelevant - how can it be? There is also the lesson of Hippomenes and Atalanta - and the Republican party in the US, and countless variations on the same theme around the world. Namely, the progress of the good of any kind is hostage to and easily derailed by lies, i.e., "claims."

Placing the burden of proof or disproof on the auditor is just insanity. Will those who disagree please send me the money they owe me. Now.

I have sent you the money I owe you

It's true, in the sense that we construct the world according to our cognitive capacities. The claim is much more difficult to defend if you say that there was nothing "out there", before you came into being, because, for one thing, this would mean that you could exhaust you understanding of the world merely by analyzing the phenomena in consciousness, but we cannot exhaust understanding of things just by thinking about them, which must mean that there's something "out there", which doesn't depend on me.

Then there's the issue of science, which aims to describe the world absent people. And at least physics, is extremely successful, even if we still don't understand what 95% of the universe is made of, aside from naming them "dark matter" and "dark energy" respectively.

And if I say, "Prove it," likely you will not credit me with having disproved your claim, or making a good-faith effort to disprove it. So while yours a clever riposte, it at the same time reveals the clear absurdity of burdening the claimee.

Edit: If all (perception and understanding of) reality is subjective then the burden of proof is not on the claimant but on the disagreer.

Thoughts. — New2K2

You mean to say that if I make a claim P to another person X, the burden of proof (for P) is X's? That doesn't sound right.

If X says P is false it's on X to prove P is false not on you to prove P

If X says P is false it's on X to prove P is false not on you to prove — New2K2

A couple of things to consider. Suppose Mr. X claims P. He can't do that without an argument i.e. Mr. X must have an argument that proves P. If Ms. Y disagrees with Mr. X, all Ms. Y has to do is prove Mr. X's argument's unsound i.e. show that the argument is invalid and/or that at least one of the premises is false. Ms. Y doesn't have to prove P is false. In short, disagreeing that P doesn't amount to saying ~P [P is false]. Disagreeing that P can simply mean that P hasn't been proven and, take note, that P hasn't been proven isn't the same as claiming ~P.

There are many people who hold firmly to an empirical(?) standpoint. In a discussion with them, their opinion of what is true/right is based on facts. — New2K2

Of course, but how does this relate to your question about reality being subjective?

It is partially true that all perception and understanding of reality is subjective. Is my previous statement objective or subjective? — emancipate

Objective. Again you are asserting a state-of-affairs that exists for ALL, and you are implying that this state-of-affairs is true even if no one knows it is true. Any time you try to make a case for what reality is, and how it is, then you are making an objective statement.

If it were subjective, you would only be speaking for yourself and your perception and understanding, not about others perception and understanding.

To claim something is to disagree with anything contrary to the claim; conversely to disagree just is to claim to the contrary. It’s the same thing.

And the burden of proof is on whoever is doing that thing, not the person they’re doing it to. IOW you’re free to think whatever you like for no particular reason, until reason to think otherwise is presented; so anyone telling you to think otherwise needs to give reasons for that, reasons beside your own lack of reason to think so.

Subjective statements are categorical errors, insofar as statements are technically empirical objects in the world, hence are not contained in the mind....or brain, if you wish....hence not subjective. — Mww

I'm talking about what the statements are about. The statements are implied to be about other empirical objects and states-of-affairs, not the personal feelings and emotional states of the person making the statement. That is the category error - when a statement is asserted to be about the empircal state-of-affairs when it is really about the person's feelings or emotional state.

I just figured it went without saying, that because perception and understanding are faculties belonging to all humans in general and thereby to each human in particular, then it follows necessarily that the objects of those faculties belongs to any human in possession of them. Which is sufficient reason to claim perception and understanding of reality, or anything at all in fact, is entirely subjective, — Mww

Which part of this statement is subjective? Which part is objective? What reason would you have of making subjective statements to others? What use would they be to others and why? If we both can only speak from our subjectivity, then aren't we simply talking past each other - talking about our own subjective states rather than the objective states of the world?

The burden of proof lies with the less reality orientated disputant - the less authoritative party.

Objective. Again you are asserting a state-of-affairs that exists for ALL, and you are implying that this state-of-affairs is true even if no one knows it is true. Any time you try to make a case for what reality is, and how it is, then you are making an objective statement. — Harry Hindu

Nah. I used all to refer to my faculties of perception, and hence my unique experience. In other words, I wanted to encompass the various modes of perception under the quantifier 'all'. It was not a statement about the universality of perception for other entities (human or otherwise).