Yes. But everyone thinks their truth is objectively true. — Cornwell1
You're confusing what is true and what we know to be true. Propositions can be true and we don't know it. It is either true that "Every truth is subjective." or it is true that "Every truth is not subjective". One of those statements must be true and one must be false. Both cannot be true.No its not because 'every truth is subjective' may not be true. Paradox is neither true or false.
To me, this just means that in propositional logic there are three states, true, false and paradox.
Nothing more exciting than that, at least for now. — universeness
The point wasn't to prevent people from playing with words. My point is that they aren't saying anything when they do. They're just making sounds with their mouths and drawing scribbles artfully.playing with words,
— Harry Hindu
Agreed, but it's something humans do regularly. The fact that such activity annoys some people, will not prevent it from happening. — universeness
No, that's what I'm saying the one that is making any claim about the world in which we live is doing. Sure, I'm doing it to, and you too. Every time you make an assertion about the world we live in you are implying that what you are saying is the case regardless of what I, or anyone else perceives or knows about it. In other words, you would be saying that I was wrong. How can anyone be wrong if every truth is subjective?Well if we all did that then conversation/debate would reduce. I don't think that would help.
The fact you might find something useless to you does not make it useful to all unless you are electing yourself a speaker for all in the same way you suggest I include you, due my deliberations. — universeness
agreed. So you agree, Level of truth(accuracy) and TRUE can be different, in concept. — universeness
If "a property's surface soil has been contaminated by lead at above concentrations defined by regulations." was the conclusion after the original SCM and is the same conclusion reached after the additional samples were taken, then the conclusion is no more or less accurate. You just have more justification for that conclusion. You're confusing accuracy with justifications. The conclusion is either accurate/true or inaccurate/false regardless of how many samples are taken. More samples are taken to satisfy your skepticism of the conclusion.An example - I go to work on a property where surface soil has been contaminated by lead at above concentrations defined by regulations. A previous investigation collected and analyzed three samples from the effected area. I create a SCM showing the area where soil is contaminated based on that data. Looking at the distribution and the number of samples, I decide that I don't have enough data. I find historic maps and aerial photographs that show where lead was used on site. Based on that, I revise the SCM and decide that 10 additional samples should be collected. I collect and analyze the samples and then revise the SCM again.
In my judgement, the original SCM was not adequate to make the kind of decisions needed. Based on additional data, I revise it. The final SCM is more accurate than the original one. The original SCM wasn't false. The new one isn't true. One is more accurate than the other. — T Clark
Propositions can be true and we don't know it. It is either true that "Every truth is subjective." or it is true that "Every truth is not subjective". One of those statements must be true and one must be false. Both cannot be true. — Harry Hindu
It is either true that "Every truth is subjective." or it is true that "Every truth is not subjective". One of those statements must be true and one must be false. Both cannot be true. — Harry Hindu
Ok, Snowflake, it's actually the other way around. My post was an attempt to understand what you are trying to say and your response is thinly veiled ad hominen because you are unwilling to try and understand my questions to clarify your position.Your questions show that you haven't even tried to understand what I'm trying to describe. I don't expect agreement, but the ideas are not difficult.
Let's you and me not interact with each other from now on. — T Clark
More specifically, what decisions needed to be made? You're just moving the goal posts. You're saying that conceptual models are useful and accurate but then didn't explain what kind of decisions the concept is useful for, or which concept was even being used if not the concept of "a property's surface soil has been contaminated by lead at above concentrations defined by regulations." You weren't clear about what concept was being used, nor what decisions it was being used for.In my judgement, the original SCM was not adequate to make the kind of decisions needed. — T Clark
You're confusing what is true and what we know to be true. Propositions can be true and we don't know it. It is either true that "Every truth is subjective." or it is true that "Every truth is not subjective". One of those statements must be true and one must be false. Both cannot be true. — Harry Hindu
My point is that they aren't saying anything when they do. They're just making sounds with their mouths and drawing scribbles artfully. — Harry Hindu
Every time you make an assertion about the world we live in you are implying that what you are saying is the case regardless of what I, or anyone else perceives or knows about it. In other words, you would be saying that I was wrong. How can anyone be wrong if every truth is subjective? — Harry Hindu
Really? Then please educate me on what the paradox says. Which state-of-affairs does a paradox describe? If what you say is true, then it is merely your opinion that it is merely my opinion of what is actually the case, which doesn't help either one of us, or anyone else.To me, you are simply ignoring the propositional logic state called paradox.
'Every truth is subjective as an objective truth' is a state of paradox, which demonstrates that the state 'true' and the state 'false' are not the only two logical states in existence. It's got nothing to do with truths that we don't know are true.
My point is that they aren't saying anything when they do. They're just making sounds with their mouths and drawing scribbles artfully.
— Harry Hindu
Merely your opinion — universeness
Exactly. So evidence is what supports some proposition, not merely holding some idea to be true.If I say the Earth is round and another says it's flat, then we will both have our supporters and dissenters. Who would you support? whichever choice you make, would mean that you are calling the other group wrong. Someone being declared wrong by majority vote is good enough for me. If new evidence comes to light then perhaps the vote will change. — universeness
If every truth possesses the quality of subjectivity then you don't get to say that I'm wrong, or that what I'm saying isn't the case. You can and I can believe in completely opposite things and we would both be correct and no one would ever be wrong, or what we believe would always be the case, which is just nonsense. What part of this proposition, "Neil Armstrong is the first human to walk on the Moon.", is subjectively true and which part is objectively true?I don't see why this should be the case. Every truth is both subjective and objective. There is objectivity in each truth, and there is an element of subjectivity in truth as well. — pfirefry
No. Combining the sentences isn't what makes them make sense, or meaningful. What makes them meaningful is whether or not what they refer to is the case or not.But on their own they make little sense. It's more appropriate to combine them. Every subjective truth is seen as objectively true by the people believing in it. — Cornwell1
Combining the sentences isn't what makes them make sense, or meaningful. What makes them meaningful is whether or not what they refer to is the case or not. — Harry Hindu
Then please educate me on what a paradox says — Harry Hindu
I wasn't ignoring that paradox's exist. I was explaining what a paradox is. You are free to disagree, but it would be helpful to know why — Harry Hindu
Exactly. So evidence is what supports some proposition, not merely holding some idea to be true.
Using majority support as evidence is a logical fallacy (and you're educating me on logic? - go figure). It is commonly called, appealing to popularity or argumentum ad populum — Harry Hindu
I never claimed I was attempting to educate you about anything. — universeness
I didn't say that you claimed to be attempting to educate me, I'm saying that you just attempted to do so.To me, you are simply ignoring the propositional logic state called paradox. — universeness
Maybe you should take that as a sign that is a problem with your premise. Something that is not true or false is useless (just noises and scribbles). I'm waiting on you to provide and example of a proposition that is neither true nor false that is useful or meaningful.All I can say about the state 'paradox' is what you yourself know 'its not true or false.'
I know that does not satisfy. Trying to explain something by stating what it is not, often does not satisfy but I for one, currently, can't do any better. — universeness
Oh, they use evidence, but only observational evidence that isn't integrated with logic. For instance they use the very existence of the universe and it's organized state as evidence of an intelligent designer. But they fail to acknowledge and/or commit logical fallacies when arguing against alternate explanations for why the universe exists and is the way it is. We all use evidence to support our beliefs, but how much and the integration of logic with observation (justifications) can be the difference between what is belief and what is knowledge.I think we agree that evidence assists in declaring a posit right or wrong, I think most people do.
Some people, don't need evidence, some theists for example. — universeness
You're confusing determining what is right in politics with what is right in metaphysics. Majority support still doesn't mean the minority is wrong, or doesn't matter, which is probably why the U.S. isn't a democracy, but a republic. Allowing new or dissenting ideas to be heard and compete in the arena of free ideas is how we progress.Majority support as a democratic method is practical whether or not it's a logical fallacy. — universeness
For me, rationalism and empiricism shouldn't be at odds with each other. They are both necessary to obtain truths. If we all just followed the logic and used the same observations I don't see why we all wouldn't come to the same conclusions. There would be no need to persuade others.What's your alternative?
I'm sure you would agree that a purely logical approach to every circumstance is, a flawed strategy.
Our exchange was based on the difference between 'accuracy' and 'truth.'
I maintain the position that there is some difference.
You have not changed my mind on that by what you have typed so far.
I'm sure my typings have not altered your position either.
We can both accept that without so much as a flutter. — universeness
No. There is what is the case independent of theory (think of what was the case before humans evolved to make theories about what was the case before their existence) and then there is the case of me asserting my theory. Truth is the relationship between what my theory states and what is, or was, the case independent of my theory.But what's the case depends on your theory. Or better, is your theory. Observations are not theory-laden, the observations are the theory. — Cornwell1
Do you both agree with this proposition: "In believing opposite propositions we both can't be right, but we can both be wrong." — Harry Hindu
There is what is the case independent of theory (think of what was the case before humans evolved to make theories about what was the case before their existence) and then there is the case of me asserting my theory. Truth is the relationship between what my theory states and what is, or was, the case independent of my theory. — Harry Hindu
I didn't say that you claimed to be attempting to educate me, I'm saying that you just attempted to do so — Harry Hindu
Maybe you should take that as a sign that is a problem with your premise. Something that is not true or false is useless (just noises and scribbles). I'm waiting on you to provide and example of a proposition that is neither true nor false that is useful or meaningful — Harry Hindu
Oh, they use evidence — Harry Hindu
You're confusing determining what is right in politics with what is right in metaphysics. Majority support still doesn't mean the minority is wrong, or doesn't matter, which is probably why the U.S. isn't a democracy, but a republic. Allowing new or dissenting ideas to be heard and compete in the arena of free ideas is how we progress — Harry Hindu
For me, rationalism and empiricism shouldn't be at odds with each other. They are both necessary to obtain truths. If we all just followed the logic and used the same observations I don't see why we all wouldn't come to the same conclusions. There would be no need to persuade others — Harry Hindu
Where is the theory we observe? Where some see quark like particles and you see triples of geometrically extended structures, are you saying that what you are seeing is a theory, or objects? If what you see is different than what others are describing that they see, how do you know that you're both talking about the same thing? You'd run the risk of talking past each other.Of course. Everybody wants his theory to be objectively true. Or be constantly falsified by observations. Or established in research programs. We observe the theory though. The theory is subjective. So what we observe is dependent on theory. There is no theory independent reality pulling the theory in the right direction. Well, there is, but only after the theoretical reality has been introduced in the first place. Where some see quark like point particles, I see triplets of geometrically extended structures. — Cornwell1
Then we're talking past each other. That seems to be happening a lot lately on this forum. I'm talking about paradoxes and you're talking about my choice to ignore the paradox. If I'm talking about and attempting to understand the paradox then how can you say that I'm ignoring it?:roll: I think you probably need to read what you are posting before submitting because you're not making a whole lot of sense.I disagree. Saying that you are choosing to ignore the paradox state is a comment about your choice not your understanding of paradox. — universeness
Finally, some examples:No, I don't take that as problematic to my premise. I find something that is not true or false, intriguing.
You find it useless. The Universe continues regardless.
There are many other paradoxical scenarios presented in propositional logic. I'm sure you are familiar with many of them, the barbers paradox, the liars paradox etc. If they or they're like do not stimulate your idea of 'useful' or 'meaningful,' then that's your prerogative. I feel no responsibility for that. — universeness
And just as you used the fact that a majority believe something then that is evidence it is true, they are using the fact that they were told as evidence that it is true. They are both logical fallacies - one is appealing to popularity, the other is appealing to authority.Some do some dont. Some believe in god(s) because they have been told to and are too scared not to. — universeness
You're confused. Democratic systems listen only to the majority. In the U.S. minorities have rights that cannot be infringed upon, so listening to minority views would mean that you are not supporting a democratic system. Not every system where representatives are elected is a democracy. A democracy is simply majority rules.I have little interest in metaphysical musings. I have no confusion. I have already stated I support a democratic system, so it follows that I would listen to minority views, dissenting voices. You are stating the obvious. A republic is described as "a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives." The term 'elected representatives' indicates a democratic system. — universeness
The difference in reports is more about the report, not what was observed.One person's rationality is another person's irrationality. People reports based on the 'same observations can vary wildly. People are emotional creatures. Some people are highly emotional. Emotions are not necessarily rational but they can be just as powerful and useful as logic. A combination of the two makes the psyche of most individuals. — universeness
If what you see is different than what others are describing that they see, how do you know that you're both talking about the same thing? You'd run the risk of talking past each other — Harry Hindu
So, is what you just said true in that it is the case regardless of whether I agree or not, or whether anyone else knows it or not? Are you describing your world bubble (subjectivity) or the world outside your bubble where everyone else exists (objectivity)?The risk exists, but I think we can explain what we see. We can talk and articulate what we think we see. We are all people who look at a world. Nò world stands separate from other worlds. People don't exist as isolated entities. — Cornwell1
So, is what you just said true in that it is the case regardless of whether I agree or not, or whether anyone else knows it or not? Are you describing your world bubble (subjectivity) or the world outside your bubble where everyone else exists (objectivity)? — Harry Hindu
What part of this proposition, "Neil Armstrong is the first human to walk on the Moon.", is subjectively true and which part is objectively true? — Harry Hindu
If every truth possesses the quality of subjectivity then you don't get to say that I'm wrong, or that what I'm saying isn't the case. You can and I can believe in completely opposite things and we would both be correct and no one would ever be wrong, or what we believe would always be the case, which is just nonsense. — Harry Hindu
Then we're talking past each other. That seems to be happening a lot lately on this forum. I'm talking about paradoxes and you're talking about my choice to ignore the paradox. If I'm talking about and attempting to understand the paradox then how can you say that I'm ignoring it?:roll: I think you probably need to read what you are posting before submitting because you're not making a whole lot of sense — Harry Hindu
But in saying that conceptual models are accurate TClark is saying they are true. "Accurate" is a synonym for "true". — Harry Hindu
Your exasperation button is easily pressed. I had already given you the example of 'the only true fact is there are no true facts.' Your quick jump to exasperation, is a weakness in the teaching world.Finally, some examples: — Harry Hindu
Your examples help prove my point, not yours. If you can't provide an example of a question that either of these paradoxes answers, or which state-of-affairs they refer to, then that helps to prove my point — Harry Hindu
they are using the fact that they were told as evidence that it is true — Harry Hindu
You're confused. Democratic systems listen only to the majority. In the U.S. minorities have rights that cannot be infringed upon, so listening to minority views would mean that you are not supporting a democratic system. Not every system where representatives are elected is a democracy. A democracy is simply majority rules — Harry Hindu
The difference in reports is more about the report, not what was observed. — Harry Hindu
What part of this proposition, "Neil Armstrong is the first human to walk on
the Moon.", is subjectively true and which part is objectively true? — Harry Hindu
The latter isn't about the state-of-affairs of Neil Armstrong walking on the Moon (whether it actually occurred or not). It is about you. This is why we would be talking past each other. You're talking about you and your assumptions, while I'm talking about what potentially happened on the Moon.The proposition is not true in the sense that you cannot prove it to be absolutely true. No matter how hard you try, a skeptic will find a way to question this proposition. Maybe Apollo 11 was fabricated; Buzz Aldrin was technically the first one to meet the criteria of walking; perhaps Neil Armstrong wasn't a human; someone had done this before Neil and kept it in secret; and so on.
The proposition is objectively true in the sense that you're referring to a specific event that objectively happened.
The proposition is subjectively true in the sense that it is grounded in your subjective assumptions. You're referring to a specific Neil Armstrong and not any other person with the same name. You're referring to a specific moon. You have a specific idea of what it means to walk on the Moon, in oppose to stepping on a lunar meteorite found on Earth, standing barefoot on a celestial body, or perhaps walking all the way from Earth to the Moon on foot. — pfirefry
How is it inaccurate if it is useful to me?Our discussion is in general a quite minor issue. You suggested T Clark saw no difference between the term accuracy and the term truth and your comment about T Clark was:
But in saying that conceptual models are accurate TClark is saying they are true. "Accurate" is a synonym for "true".
— Harry Hindu
I think you are being inaccurate when you say 'Accurate is a synonym for True.' I think there is a difference between them. I explained why I thought this in my examples about 'measurement' and 'paradox' That's what started our exchange and we have simply been expanding on our positions since. Its general importance is very minor. — universeness
I'm having trouble picturing this. If there is no overarching world bubble, then what is the medium in which our subjective bubbles exist? What separates our subjective bubbles from each other to say that they are distinct entities?There will be agreement and disagreement. There is no overarching world bubble which is the same regardless of all subjective bubbles. — Cornwell1
The rest is just confusing. You keep denying a one true reality, but then talk about things that exist when no one is looking and in something where you and I exist and can interact.Of course, all subjects will think their own bubble is a measure for all. And rightly so. I want my theory to have objective existence. I want to know how reality looks like. But it will always be a theoretical picture. It's hard to leave the idea of one true reality, an idea that was formed in ancient Greece and found its way in western society. I think it's a dangerous idea. Of course, I have my ideas about the universe, where it came from, the triplets of massless particles giving quarks and leptons, etc. And I think these things really exist, also when I'm not there. But that by itself is a subjective idea. It's hard to give in to such relativism, but I think that's how it is, objectively...
Which doesn't mean that just every fantasy is right, considering science. At the moment there is no proof for quark and lepton sub-structure. But still I see it, because it offers great perspectives. — Cornwell1
The rest is just confusing. You keep denying a one true reality, but then talk about things that exist when no one is looking and in something where you and I exist and can interact. — Harry Hindu
How is it inaccurate if it is useful to me?
You see, you keep making the same mistake of asserting that I am wrong while at the same time talking about subjective truths and what is accurate is what is useful. If truths are subjective, then I can never be wrong, and what is useful to me may not be useful to you, but that doesn't mean it is any less accurate than what you believe to be the case. I don't think that you are following through with thinking about the implications of what you are saying because you keep saying one thing (all truths are subjective) and then doing another (accusing me of being inaccurate). — Harry Hindu
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.