There are an infinite number of possible descriptions of the world. — T Clark
The world is what is the case, which is a subset of the possibilities. — Banno
You and I sit opposite each other at a table. On my right is a knife, on my left, a fork. The fork is on your right. Does that mean there is no objective truth as to the location of the fork? — Banno
Drop the word "objective" if it gets in the way.
Both an observer on the earth and one in orbit around the sun will agree that, for an observer on the earth the earth remains stationary, while for an observer in orbit around the sun it moves. Movement is relative to the frame of reference and can be translated from one frame to another. Basic relativity. — Banno
So objectively speaking, is the Earth moving or not? Can objectivity be relative? — sime
I'm not going to deal with this yet again. The Principle of Relativity does not say that truth is relative to the observer. It says that truth (physical law) is the same for all observers....that appear to be mutually inconsistent... — sime
There are an infinite number of true descriptions of the world. — T Clark
See the context.
So objectively speaking, is the Earth moving or not? Can objectivity be relative? — sime
So what's your answer to Sime? — Banno
While, conventionally speaking, true propositions are related to facts, but it is not necessary that they do, insofar as it is not necessarily a fact that makes a proposition true. Philosophy proper does not concern itself with convention. — Mww
It depends on how you define "objective". The closest we can get to objectivity in my view is the view from nowhere in particular, or the most generalized and informed view, — Janus
the view from nowhere in particular — Janus
Isn't one account of objectivity simply a 'shared subjectivity' or perhaps that of the intersubjective community of agreement. — Tom Storm
Agreement, yes. Much better than "shared subjectivity", whatever that might be — Banno
Better to think of it as the view from anywhere. It's what is the case such that if I were in your position I would see the same thing. It says that if I were on your side of the table the knife would be on the right; it's the movement I would agree is occurring if I were in your frame of reference. — Banno
You may well be right. — Tom Storm
How do you think about certain scientific facts (especially in the context of fallibilistic understandings of science) as a community of agreement (i.e., scientific consensus)? If something in science is a fact by consensus until it is falsified in some way, does such a 'provisional' fact count as objective? Or is it just an agreement? — Tom Storm
Consider how you phrased your question: "something in science is a fact by consensus until it is falsified in some way"... well, no. there's a difference between consensus and fact. Scientists can - and have - agreed on stuff that was false.
Its a fact if and only if it is true,
Similarly, a statement's being objective does not render it true. — Banno
Too hard for me to explain it to you, yes. — Banno
Philosophy goes around in circles (in my head, anyway). Is it not the case that matters we have called a fact are sometimes later demonstrated as being wrong? Does this mean that it was not ever a fact then? How do we tell the difference between a fact and a holding statement? — Tom Storm
A favourite. Fun for beating falsificationists with.Against Method — Tom Storm
Philosophy goes around in circles — Tom Storm
Yep. That we think something to be true does not always make it so.Is it not the case that matters we have called a fact are sometimes later demonstrated as being wrong? — Tom Storm
Depends. But generally, yep.Does this mean that it was not ever a fact then? — Tom Storm
Well, a fact is true... I know that's not of much help, but it is right. The obvious follow up is "How do you tell if some statement is true?", to which the answer is that of course there is no general method for telling if any given statement is true...it depends on what the statement is about.How do we tell the difference between a fact and a holding statement? — Tom Storm
I'm asking you to explain what it is you think you are arguing for. Not an unreasonable request, surely?Sinking into disingenuousness and pretending you don't know in order to avoid admitting that you have no counter-argument is not going to help you. It's not a good look, Banno. — Janus
I'm asking you to explain what it is you think you are arguing for. Not an unreasonable request, surely? — Banno
The question is which is the more objective, the more informed, view in relation to the question as to whether the Earth is stationary relative to the Solar System; the view from the Earth or the view from nowhere in particular, i.e.the view from anywhere not confined to the particular. limited view(s) from Earth? — Janus
In any case all I was looking for was a counter-argument to the argument that the more objective view is the less limited, more comprehensively informed view. — Janus
Great, thank you for the clarifications. Very useful. — Tom Storm
His critique of Popperian falsification is I think inescapable. Science doesn't work that way, nor ought it. But "anything goes" will not work either - it sounds like (was) a trumpet call to the Left, but ends up being a recipe for keeping things as they are - if anything goes why change?What's your view of Feyerabend's work? — Tom Storm
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.