That is not true, language is a societal phenomenon, sight is a natural phenomenon. — Merkwurdichliebe

More anthropomorphism.

A societal phenomenon is a natural phenomenon for some particular species. Language doesn't make us separate from nature. It is just a more complex form of communication between organisms.

in particular, don't pretend that there are either only subjective facts, or that there are only objective facts. — Banno

Subjective facts is a contradiction. Objective facts is a redundancy. There is no such thing as a subjective fact.

Naturalism - what you see out of the window.

Phenomenology - you looking out of the window.

So, phenomenology takes into account 'the act of looking', which naturalism brackets out and then neglects to consider. — Wayfarer

This is what causes the problem - splitting natural events, like looking out the window and what you see out the window into two separate categories. Using your eyes is as natural as using language to explain what you see. I can see you looking out the window and can talk about the contents of your phenomenology by observing your behavior, just as physicists talk about atoms by observing the macro world.

Your mind is just another object that I can talk about - no different than talking about any other thing in nature. The mind is just another thing acted upon and shaped by natural selection per evolutionary psychology.

But in answer; it (starfish) can be both, depending on how it is considered. It has an umwelt or sensorium dominated by temperature gradients and the textural elements of water currents. The water around it is structurally similar to our own environment (in terms of the S/O distinction), impressing itself upon its sensory apparatus in a manner that reflects environmental properties. — fdrake

I think there is a difference between organisms with a central nervous system and those with a nerve net like starfish. I think that only organisms with a central nervous systems have some form of mind, or perspective of the world, where all the sensations come together, or overlap, and the world takes on an appearance relative to the senses.

This view from somewhere is what we usually refer to as subjectivity, and a view from everywhere, or a God's eye view, would be objectivity. So when we talk about things from a view from everywhere, we are speaking objectively. When our statement includes a perspective, then we are speaking subjectively.

The problem seems to be when we use language in a way that commits a category error, where we imply that our feelings or perspectives are part of the thing we are talking about instead of part of the thing doing the feeling or perceiving.

'Subject' resonates with this by being the term in a predicate that relates to a human or human property, such as a mental state or a brain state, or the presence of a neural correlate, all of which are a necessary constituent of a 'subjective' property. — fdrake

This is just anthropomorphism.

Is a starfish a subject or an object? What about a mosquito?

as if one ought to qualify the 'existence' of anything (as 'objective' or otherwise) as turning upon 'our existence', or lack-thereof. As if we were so important that existence itself begets a whole new qualifier ('objective', or 'not-objective') to mark its proximity (or lack-thereof) to our existence. — StreetlightX

Just as Jupiter is a necessary existent for the Great Red Spot, a brain and an array of senses is necessary for the existent of an observation. The existence of Jupiter is not dependent upon an observation. It's existence is dependent upon the natural forces (gravity, etc.) that led to it's existence as we observe it now. So it really has nothing to do with us. We are just another group of objects that we can talk about. It is just a question of cause and effect. What are the necessary causes for some effect (like an observation of a planet) to exist?

When we think we are being objective but find out we were wrong, the reasons we find that we were wrong was because we were being more subjective and less objective. We were missing information, lied to, or committed a logical fallacy, like pleading to authority. — Harry Hindu

What if we were misled by feelings of revulsion, a preference for blonds...

These would be subjective. — Banno

Isn't appealing to feelings or emotions a logical fallacy? So I would agree that any conclusion reached by appealing to emotions or authority would be a subjective conclusion, and not actually be true in any sense of the word.

I just do most see what "objective" is doing here. Both are aspects of the world that we can talk about. — Banno

Yes, but remember how I explained that a subjective conclusion is a category error, where one projects their own feelings and values onto external objects, as if everyone would agree that vanilla ice cream is the best if they just tasted it. So, a subjective claim isn't a claim about some external object in the world, it is a claim about one's values. So if we were to use language properly and say things like, "It is my belief, or preference, that vanilla ice cream is the best." instead of "vanilla ice cream is the best", then we would be properly assigning the characteristic of "the best" to Banno and his preferences instead of to the ice cream.

Talking about something doesn't necessarily mean that what you are talking about is true. In order to find that out, we need to verify your claims by using logic and reason.

It's my opinion that it's my opinion. — YuZhonglu

I'm only interested in opinions if they are based on some reason, or evidence, but then that would no longer be an opinion, but an informed statement. What reasons, or evidence would you provide that there are no facts, only opinions, and are those reasons just other opinions?

Where does it stop? Is it your opinion that you exist and have a mind, or is that a fact? Is your post evidence that you have a mind and that you exist?

I'm sure you experience typing a post and submitting it. Anyone can call that event, or state-of-affairs, anything they want, but isn't it a fact that it happened, or that something is happening (like your mental existence)? Using arbitrary symbols to refer to that event is something different and requires a mental existence to even accomplish.

The form of any proposition is either sound or symbols, neither of which has any meaning in itself. Any meaning a proposition has is assigned. No assignment, no assigner, no meaning.

No one has yet defined "meaning." Maybe for the sake of argument we should. — tim wood

I have defined meaning as the relationship between cause and effect. What words mean, are what the author intended, and author's are influenced by the language they learn and their skill with using that language.

Every causal relationship has meaning. We don't assign meaning, we discover it.

Now, "I believe that the cat is on the mat" sets out an opinion, and hence is subjective. But "The cat is on the mat" and "I believe that the cat is on the mat" express quite distinct things. — Banno

Not that distinct. One is about the cat, and the other is about your belief. Both are objective aspects of the world that we can talk about. Is it true that you have beliefs? Is it true that a cat is on the mat? Are both of these things true independent of how people feel about them?

I think that there is some philosophical over-thinking in your approach. I do not think that we would only call a fact objective if people agree about it. I can see no reason why there can't be something that is true, and yet believed false by most folk. I's not hard to think of historical examples. — Banno

Sure, this would be pleading to the authority and isn't what I mean when I say that objectivity is something everyone believes. What I mean is that everyone CAN believe it if stripped of all subjectivity (like emotional attachments to beliefs), and given the same evidence (just the facts, ma'am). This is what the prosecution and defense do in a courtroom in trying to sway the jury to see their side of things. What does the evidence support? What is the logical conclusion given the evidence?

When we think we are being objective but find out we were wrong, the reasons we find that we were wrong was because we were being more subjective and less objective. We were missing information, lied to, or committed a logical fallacy, like pleading to authority.

No, you can't. And yes, that's an empirical claim. Since you can't prove empirical claims, you can't prove that an empirical claim was made.

Again, the take-away should be: "Don't worry about proof. Worry about the reasons there are for believing P versus ~P." — Terrapin Station

Lol, you can only know that you believe something, empirically.

I've been struck by the lack of clarity in several recent discussions revolving around subjectivity, objectivity, truth and belief. — Banno

Me, too. It really is very simple, but philosophers tend to muddy the waters with their use of language.

Certain statements are labeled subjective because they set out an individuals taste or feelings. In contrast, other statements are called objective, as they do not set out an individual's taste, feelings or opinions. — Banno

Right. In other words, subjective statements are value statements. They associate some notion of "good" and "bad", or "right" and "wrong" to some aspect of the world. Subjective statements are similar to a category error in that a person associates the feeling with the object - as if it were an objective feature of that object that everyone would agree with.

Banno prefers vanilla ice to chocolate — Banno

Is it not a fact that Banno prefers vanilla ice to chocolate, regardless how anyone feels about that, including Banno? Is that not an attribute of Banno?

Now, if Banno were to say, "Vanilla ice cream is the best ice cream", then that is a subjective statement because Banno is attributing "best" to vanilla ice cream, as if vanilla ice cream has this attribute called "the best". This is a category error. "The best" is not an attribute of vanilla ice cream, it is an attribute of Banno's feelings of vanilla ice cream.

Here's a simple test you might use to check if some fact is objective or subjective. Ask if it can be said in the first person. — Banno

Can you say "the cat is on the mat" in first person? (or, yes, any person) — Banno

It seems to me that one can have a perspective without being able to put it into words. The cat has a perspective but can't speak English. Speaking is a human behavior that communicates one's feelings and perspectives, just as a cat can communicate it's feelings and perspective by purring, hissing, or laying on a mat (the cat finds the mat comfortable, however I prefer my bed).

What about infants, or the Man Without Words (https://vimeo.com/76386718), who have perspectives and feelings that may differ but can't communicate them via speaking a language? This line of thinking just complicates the distinction between subjective and objective and it is simpler to stick with defining subjectivity as it relates to one's feelings and personal preferences, and the objective as what is the case regardless of anyone's feelings and personal preferences.

We can't prove empirical claims period. It's just a matter of whether there are good reasons to believe one option over the contradictory option there. — Terrapin Station

Can you prove that an empirical claim was made? If so, how do you do it if not empirically? Is it an fact that people make empirical claims and have feelings about things that influence their thinking? Is that a fact regardless of how people, or any mind, feels about that? Is it a fact of reality that you have feelings and preferences that may differ from others? Whenever we are referring to some state of affairs that we expect to others to agree if you cancel out our subjective differences (like our location in space-time and personal feelings and values), we are making objective statements about the world.

And what would be objective about that? How do we objectively map a relation between a claim and a state of affairs? — Terrapin Station

How do we objectively map the meaning of words? How is it that we can even communicate if all of our words don't exist out in the world and we use definitions (an objective meaning of a word) to determine their meaning, and therefore the meaning of your post? Does your post have an objective meaning - one that everyone should realize if they read your post? What is the meaning of your post - what others interpret, or what you intended when you wrote them? We have a set of rules for interpreting words that we all agree on, just as scientists have a set of rules to determine the accuracy of some hypothesis.

We're not using the scientific method to determine that a scientific theory works by using its products. We're using the same everyday pragmatism used by those who thought the earth was flat. — Isaac

Are we not testing the scientific method itself when using technology that some theory arrived at using the scientific method? I don't see how my explanation doesn't allow for mass delusions.

How could we ever know whether what we believe is "the way things really are", and if your answer to that question is some method (let's call it method A), then your definition of 'truth' is really "that which passes the test of method A" since everything passing that test is presumed to be "the way things really are" and therefore 'true'. — Isaac

That is the problem with knowledge that I explained.

Why are you talking about knowledge all of a sudden. We were talking about 'truth' not knowledge. I'm not following the link. — Isaac

Do you have a short-term memory problem? That would explain a lot.
I was responding to this:

A second, unrelated question. How does your theory handle the seemingly counter intuitive problem of knowledge evolution? — Isaac

And then in the same post that you ask why I'm talking about knowledge, you ask me how we know anything:

How could we ever know whether what we believe is "the way things really are", — Isaac

So, it would seem to me that the word, "know" and "knowledge" need to be defined. And yes, we have been talking about "knowledge". Try your best to remember. We have evidence that you used the word even though you don't seem to remember. This is what I mean by objective. Because your words exist out in the world it is possible, for those that look, to find them.

I don't understand how this can be. How can our thoughts and claims (verbal expressions of thought) be about something which is independent from our thoughts. How would we go about constructing a thought about something which is independent of the way we think about it? — Isaac

Did you make a reply post to me independent of me ever reading it? If I never read your reply, did you really write it? Is your post in my head, or on the screen? If it were only in my head or yours, how can others read it? If you were to see something behind me and tell me that there is something behind me, should I look behind me, or in your head (or more specifically your mind?)?

But that is scientific peers. You're missing something crucial... — Isaac

No, it is you that is missing something crucial - namely the rest of the post that you only responded to part of, so it is no wonder that your complaints don't take into account the rest of the post.

People, like you and me, test scientific theories every time we use the technology they are based on. Does combustion work the same for everyone? This is unlike the theory of "god" where everyone has their own definition an can't agree on what "god" is. Science knows no contextual limitations.

I also defined "truth" in a way that is similar to the correspondence theory of truth - as a relationship between some claim or proposition and the way things really are.

A second, unrelated question. How does your theory handle the seemingly counter intuitive problem of knowledge evolution? If that which the majority of (specialist?) recorders say they experience is what "truth" is, then was it 'true' that the earth was flat back when that would have been the report of most observers? — Isaac

Sure, because I don't avoid answering questions like you do. There were several in my previous post that you ignored. Never mind that your example is about the majority of human's understanding of the world PRIOR to the scientific method being used.

I have defined knowledge as a set of rules for interpreting sensory data. Knowledge changes. What we thought we knew we find out that we didn't, so did we really know anything? Because we aren't omniscient, our understanding of the world can differ and fluctuate as we acquire new experiences of the world. We all attempt to make sense of these new experiences by integrating it with what we already "know".

So, when I said that truth pertains to what everyone can experience, what I meant was that world exists objectively, independently of the ways we think about it or describe it, and our thoughts and claims are about that world. Sure, we can get it wrong, but that is because we didn't do all the proper observations. The Earth was round even though most people thought it was flat because the world exists as it is independent of our claims about it. Didn't I say earlier that what is objective is true and what is subjective isn't? So in effect our lack of information created a subjective notion of the world being flat. Strange how it seems that in order to get at truth, we must look at the bigger picture. Instead of standing on the Earth as part of it, separate yourself from it and you will see with your own eyes that it is round. In other words, you must be more objective, and less subjective, in your thinking.

That would depend on how you define 'true'. If your definition of truth is 'that which everyone experiences' then a proposition which is true is true for everyone by definition. But that definition would require you to check with everyone before declaring anything to be true. — Isaac

Isnt that what we do? Scientists make claims and propose theories which then require their peers to perform experiments to then determine if the theory holds. Is it true that humans evolved from other organisms, or that the Earth is experiencing climate change?

I have also defined "truth" as the degree of accuracy between some state of affairs and some claim. Which claim has a higher degree of truth - that Earth is, or isnt, experiencing climate change?

Now, if we want to be more strict in the application of "truth" and only apply it to the form of some proposition (like its lack of logical fallacies) and not some state of affairs that the proposition refers to, then we end up with propositions that can be "true" but doesn't refer to anything real.

For example, the proposition, "Donald Trump is the most honest person alive." is logically consistent in form, but has no bearing on reality. How would you determine if the proposition reflects reality, or has some degree of accuracy, if not by asking others who have interacted with Trump about his honesty or lack thereof.

How do you know that you arent hallucinating at any given moment? Is it true that you are hallucinating at this moment, or that you are actually reading my post? How would you find out?

And how do they go about discovering this then? If, in order to declare something is "true", one must first check if it is that way for everyone, that's going to severely curcumscribe it's use in day-to-day conversation. — Isaac

Take Terrapin's example. Are true propositions true for everyone?

First, when I use the term "truth," I'm referring to a property of propositions, and that's a standard thing to refer to in analytic philosophy. My analysis of it (which isn't standard) is that the property in question is the result of an individual judgment. — Terrapin Station

Are you saying that this property isnt the same for everyone. If I commit a logical fallacy as part of some claim that I make, how is that property not the same for everyone? If you call me out on "my" fallacy, then do you expect me to agree with you? Why or why not?

Aside from that, though, sticking strictly to states of affairs, I'm a relativist (or more precisely a perspectivalist for this issue), and I wouldn't say that states of affairs are the same for every reference point. — Terrapin Station

Which states of affairs are you talking about - the apple, or your perception of the apple? The apple is some state of affairs at any moment independent of any observer. An observer can have a different perspective because of their different location in space-time and different sensory organs, but the fact that there is something there for any observer to respond to must mean something.

The same can be said for Schrodingers cat. The state of being alive or dead can be in a state of flux, but the fact that there is a cat, and not some other species, or the fact that there is something in either a dead or alive state means that there must be constants in the world that we can perceive and agree on.

So we're really just talking about different effects as the result of different causes. Your perception is different than mine because of our physical differences. The apple isnt different. Our perceptions are because our perceptions are different effects, or states of affairs. Different causes lead to different effects, even if one of the causes is constant (the apple).

The apple is its own state of affairs that is a result of different causes, but the causes had to occur prior to our perception of it, as the apple is part of the cause of our perception of it. Your sensory organs are also part of this causal chain the leads to the effect of your perception. No apple or no sensory organs means no perception of an apple.

In the quantum world the observer determines the state of the cat ( shrodinger) or in the penrose diosi view gravity determines the collapse of the wave function not any observer...in historical theory postmodernists cannot disentangle the subject from the object either linguistically or in epistemological terms or as an individual actor incapable of indpendent access to the "past" it is far from clear on what foundations any truth might stand... — Edmund

Was not your explanation of these theories true, or are you giving us the wrong explanation of these theories? Is it true that these theories exist and that Schrodinger and Penrose really existed and had these ideas in their heads?

This thread, at least so far, is in English.

Someone who thinks otherwise is, as we say in the trade, wrong. That is, they have a false belief.

"This thread is in English" is true.

There, a plain use of true without the need for absolute, subjective or objective. — Banno

I can accept this because I consider "subjective truth" a contradiction (subjectivity is an incomplete or skewed notion of the truth), and "objective truth" a redundancy.

When one uses the term, "truth" they mean the way things are, or some state-of-affairs, for everyone. When someone claims that the apple is red, then the apple reflects a particular wavelength of EM energy. How we see it can differ because of the structure of our eyes can differ (color-blindness, etc.), but the apple will still be reflecting the same wavelength. When we claim that the apple is red, are we making a truth claim about the apple only, or about the apple AND our minds?

You could have lots of someones making judgments, but that doesn't give any more weight to anything. Believing that it does is called the argumentum ad populum fallacy. — Terrapin Station

That's strange that you interpreted my post in that way, when I never implied that.

Would adding the caveat of 'there is no objective truth, except for this statement' be non-contradictory? — curiousnewbie

How would you know that that is the only truth? It seems to me that in order to make that claim, there would be other true knowledge that you could point to that helped you arrive at the conclusion you are making now.

"the relationship of accuracy"-- which can only obtain as a judgment that an individual makes about it. — Terrapin Station

Isn't this why science has something called experimentation and peer review - to eliminate the subjective skewing of what just one individual claims to be the "truth".

Truth is a property of propositions. Namely, a relational property. That relational property is a matter of making a judgment about the connection between a proposition and something else. — Terrapin Station

Exactly. Truth, as a property of propositions, is a property of coherence and consistency, and lacking any logical fallacies. For some proposition to be true, it must be consistent, meaning other people will arrive at the same conclusion given all the possible evidence.

We can just go with how the person in question thinks about it. — Terrapin Station

Which is just another state-of-affairs that we can talk about and would either be true or false based on the relationship of accuracy between the claim and the actual state-of-affairs.

And the body of other propositions is just another state-of-affairs.

That relational property is a matter of making a judgment about the connection between a proposition and something else. — Terrapin Station

What is that "something else" other that some state-of-affairs that exists, which could be what is going on in your mind right now?

In claiming what you are thinking, are you not making a truth claim? If not, then why should anyone believe anything you type?

So would you say that it is objectively true, or subjectively true, that we disagree?
If we both agree that we disagree, then are we both acknowledging the truth?
If we don't agree that we disagree, who is the one that is being true?

A common term for "the same for everyone" is "universal." "Uniform" would be another option.

"Varied" is a common term for the opposite of "universal." — Terrapin Station

Cool. So if something were universal, would that make it true?

This is the problem with libertarianism. We either let everyone do whatever they want without interference at all, or we somehow organise to have people's actions constrained by reference to some objective. If we choose the second option then which objective is 'right' becomes nothing more than a matter of preference. — Isaac

This is the most common illogical argument made against libertarianism. The fact that you make it tells me that you aren't really informed enough for me to have this discussion with you.

Libertarianism isn't letting everyone do whatever they want. That is anarchy. Libertarianism is the belief in limited govt. not no govt.

So a Libertarian would be just fine with laws that stop others from infringing on other people's rights.

Then what I said would be neither subjective nor objective. How would you define my post if it doesn't fall into a subjective, or objective category?

If it is false that 'there is no objective truth' then that means objective truth exists, so the claim is not contradictory. So the only time that statement makes logical sense is when it is false, which is rather trivial. So what am I missing? — curiousnewbie

Any time someone makes a claim about some state-of-affairs that is the same for everyone - like the claim that there is no objective truth - then that is an objective truth claim. The claim defeats itself.

If there is no objective truth, then there is no subjective truth, as the subjective is simply a skewed, or incomplete, view of the objective.

Tell me how I can identify truth, subjective truth, and objective truth. — Bitter Crank

Subjective truth would be an eyewitness's testimony, where the objective truth would be all of the facts of the case (which includes eyewitness's testimony) that coincide and support each other and lead to one conclusion.

Why are most people unwilling to admit that they don't know if God does or does not exist? — Maureen

What is a god? - an extra-dimensional alien? Why call it a "god"?

It's the job of the believer to prove that God does exist — NKBJ

Why is that? Must you prove that Donald Trump exists before we will discuss him with you? Every believer (belief in anything, not just God) decides what they believe. You decide whether you agree with them or not. No-one has the "job" of proving anything. — Pattern-chaser

If I didn't at least define what Donald Trump is, how would you even know what I was talking about?

It doesn't matter what it is because of. The only relevant question here is whether one ought to do what one can about it. If I can take money from those born fit, clever and desirable, and give it to those who are born stupid, unfit and undesirable, then should I? The answer has nothing to do with the reason why those differences exist in the first place. — Isaac

So your question is, "should we treat people differently because of how they were born"?

Then that's the issue right there. If they don't care or such, then monopolies, oligopolies and such will just expand their power in light of no regulation. — Wallows

That is because a "level playing field" is a pipe dream in todays society. For a level playing field to be obtained would require humans to be genetically engineered to be the same and all raised in the same environment by the state.

Corporate power is just as dangerous to individual freedom as government power - especially when the two are entwined and support each other at the cost of our individual freedom.

A true libertarian shouldn't just want to limit government overreach of power, but any overreach that threatens individual liberty. The power of the corporations should be checked, just as the different branches of govt. are, to ensure fair competition and options for the consumer. It's just that the elitist corp. and govt. are in collusion with each other and will squash anyone who tries to rock the boat.

What does the article mean by "created alternate realities"? I wasn't aware that humans had achieved the ability to create realities. What makes a reality "alternate"?

If there is no objective reality, then what is it that separates observers into individual units in order to have subjective (differing) experiences of the same thing?

Wouldn't the "same thing" be the object (objective reality) and our differing experiences of the "same thing" would be the outcome of our different positions in space-time and life-history (subjective, or unique representations of the "same thing"). I don't see how QM undermines objective reality if it admits that there are objects, or events, that remain the same independent of our observations. It is our observations that are different, not the thing. The fact that two different observers can experience the same thing differently isn't a new idea, or surprising. It is what is expected in an objective world with objects or things, like observers that are an amalgam of their life-history and location in space-time. The frequency at which our brains process information could be different (due to drugs, lack of sleep, age, etc.), which can give rise to different experiences of the same thing.

It's just ironic to see people claim that they don't believe in an objective reality, yet they refer to theories and use language to communicate - as if everyone should experience the words as they experience them and understand what they write and a theory the way they understand it - as if theories and words can remain the same independent of some observers reading them and everyone that reads this theory or article will read the same words that they read and that the author wrote.

Funny how everyone in this thread is trying to rationally explain why rationality isnt necessary.

If one really wanted to claim that rationality isnt always necessary or sufficient, wouldnt they do it irrationally, and then would they even make any sense?

It seems to me that whenever someone wants to refer to what is true then they have to speak rationally.

And to make sense of, and to identify some sensation or emotion, requires the implementation of reason.

True, truth. Two different words meaning two different things. Start there. — tim wood

Truth is a fact or actuality.

True, as the way most people seem to use the term, is the degree of accuracy some representation (like a statement) is to the truth.

The philosophical definition of "true" relates to the logic of some argument.

This is like saying "We can't ever know the truth."

If we can't ever know the truth, then how is it true that we know that? Is that not a truth that we know? Isn't that a contradiction? It seems to me that truth (and knowledge) need to be redefined.

Is knowledge the same as truth? If no, then what makes them different?

The only reason someone would abandon logic and reason is that they don't find the conclusions of logic and reason consoling. In other words, they have an emotional attachment to a certain assumption and if logic and reason don't reinforce that assumption, then logic and reason aren't good for reaching all conclusions.

So the hospital would only have black doctors available? Sounds like a racist hospital to me.