Evidence and other words

[mikkel_the_dane]

First off, a practical note. If you know, however you know it with whatever version of evidence you use, however you phrase that I am/do/think an actual negative, you properly shouldn't read on. In practice you properly know how to be you and cope good enough and there is no reason for you to learn something new, for which you have to reevaluate what you already know.

But if you do it anyway, please take care not to break the forum rules.

So with that out off the way, what is going to happen is that I am going to evaluate meta-cognition versus automatic reactive cognition. Yeah, I know.

The simplest way to get a handle on that is to compare 3 people and note what they do as same, similar and/or different.
Person 1: I know X is Y and not Z
Person 2: I know X is Z and not Y.
Person 3: I don't know that for X in any sense, so I do a third option.
The last one is skepticism in practice for suspending judgment. As a skeptic, critical thinker and all that for some behaviors, I simple note that I don't know and do it differently.

So what is going on with evidence as a word? Well, if you test that word for how you know, you can notice that it is cognitive. But that requires, that you notice in your thinking that you think about evidence. So if you do that differently, it is a fact of the world, that we do it differently. And if you evaluate that to mean that your thinking is correct and mine not, I will just note, that I am still here. In effect for all the humans you have ever with evidence and knowledge observed that they are not Y, some of them still tend to stay around. And I am one of them.

So here it is for testing for in effect a positive and negative. If you test and get after checking your test, that the result is a negative, then that is a positive negative.
So here is an example of that as relevant for do and don't do.

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

And that is the game as back to person 1, 2 and 3.
We are all in the world and we are the same for having functioning cognition. We are then similar in that we use it, but get different results of different version of "I know".
And even as as skeptic, for the world is real, knowable and orderly, I know that for a limit to real, knowable and orderly. But I am not supposed to say that out loud, because we are supposed to eliminate all negatives and only get positive positives.

Yes, there is lot more to that. In effect there are books for over 2000 years plus trying to do that. And I can't do the "Holy Grail" of only positives for the world is y and not Z.
But I can do this. If you claim you can, I just test if I can do it differently and if I can, I just note that.

 

[MikeF]

First off, a practical note. If you know, however you know it with whatever version of evidence you use, however you phrase that I am/do/think an actual negative, you properly shouldn't read on. In practice you properly know how to be you and cope good enough and there is no reason for you to learn something new, for which you have to reevaluate what you already know.

But if you do it anyway, please take care not to break the forum rules.

So with that out off the way, what is going to happen is that I am going to evaluate meta-cognition versus automatic reactive cognition. Yeah, I know.

The simplest way to get a handle on that is to compare 3 people and note what they do as same, similar and/or different.
Person 1: I know X is Y and not Z
Person 2: I know X is Z and not Y.
Person 3: I don't know that for X in any sense, so I do a third option.
The last one is skepticism in practice for suspending judgment. As a skeptic, critical thinker and all that for some behaviors, I simple note that I don't know and do it differently.

So what is going on with evidence as a word? Well, if you test that word for how you know, you can notice that it is cognitive. But that requires, that you notice in your thinking that you think about evidence. So if you do that differently, it is a fact of the world, that we do it differently. And if you evaluate that to mean that your thinking is correct and mine not, I will just note, that I am still here. In effect for all the humans you have ever with evidence and knowledge observed that they are not Y, some of them still tend to stay around. And I am one of them.

So here it is for testing for in effect a positive and negative. If you test and get after checking your test, that the result is a negative, then that is a positive negative.
So here is an example of that as relevant for do and don't do.

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

And that is the game as back to person 1, 2 and 3.
We are all in the world and we are the same for having functioning cognition. We are then similar in that we use it, but get different results of different version of "I know".
And even as as skeptic, for the world is real, knowable and orderly, I know that for a limit to real, knowable and orderly. But I am not supposed to say that out loud, because we are supposed to eliminate all negatives and only get positive positives.

Yes, there is lot more to that. In effect there are books for over 2000 years plus trying to do that. And I can't do the "Holy Grail" of only positives for the world is y and not Z.
But I can do this. If you claim you can, I just test if I can do it differently and if I can, I just note that.

Is it possible to explore why Person 1, 2, 3 draw different conclusions and use what is learned to further evaluate their respective conclusions?

 

[Nakosis]

First off, a practical note. If you know, however you know it with whatever version of evidence you use, however you phrase that I am/do/think an actual negative, you properly shouldn't read on. In practice you properly know how to be you and cope good enough and there is no reason for you to learn something new, for which you have to reevaluate what you already know.

But if you do it anyway, please take care not to break the forum rules.

So with that out off the way, what is going to happen is that I am going to evaluate meta-cognition versus automatic reactive cognition. Yeah, I know.

The simplest way to get a handle on that is to compare 3 people and note what they do as same, similar and/or different.
Person 1: I know X is Y and not Z
Person 2: I know X is Z and not Y.
Person 3: I don't know that for X in any sense, so I do a third option.
The last one is skepticism in practice for suspending judgment. As a skeptic, critical thinker and all that for some behaviors, I simple note that I don't know and do it differently.

So what is going on with evidence as a word? Well, if you test that word for how you know, you can notice that it is cognitive. But that requires, that you notice in your thinking that you think about evidence. So if you do that differently, it is a fact of the world, that we do it differently. And if you evaluate that to mean that your thinking is correct and mine not, I will just note, that I am still here. In effect for all the humans you have ever with evidence and knowledge observed that they are not Y, some of them still tend to stay around. And I am one of them.

So here it is for testing for in effect a positive and negative. If you test and get after checking your test, that the result is a negative, then that is a positive negative.
So here is an example of that as relevant for do and don't do.

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

And that is the game as back to person 1, 2 and 3.
We are all in the world and we are the same for having functioning cognition. We are then similar in that we use it, but get different results of different version of "I know".
And even as as skeptic, for the world is real, knowable and orderly, I know that for a limit to real, knowable and orderly. But I am not supposed to say that out loud, because we are supposed to eliminate all negatives and only get positive positives.

Yes, there is lot more to that. In effect there are books for over 2000 years plus trying to do that. And I can't do the "Holy Grail" of only positives for the world is y and not Z.
But I can do this. If you claim you can, I just test if I can do it differently and if I can, I just note that.

Moral judgments, aesthetic judgments, decisions about applications of science, and conclusions about the supernatural are outside the realm of science,

I do it differently.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Is it possible to explore why Person 1, 2, 3 draw different conclusions and use what is learned to further evaluate their respective conclusions?

Well, we would have to make a model of subjectivity, that is natural and is explained for cause and effect. In other words stop treating subjective as unnatural, unreal and all of these other subjective evaluations. Here is the trick that separates 2 classes of models.
#Objectivity is better that subjectivity and it is ignored that it is better, is subjective.
#Subjectivity is a natural as say gravity.

 

[MikeF]

Well, we would have to make a model of subjectivity, that is natural and is explained for cause and effect. In other words stop treating subjective as unnatural, unreal and all of these other subjective evaluations. Here is the trick that separates 2 classes of models.
#Objectivity is better that subjectivity and it is ignored that it is better, is subjective.
#Subjectivity is a natural as say gravity.

Well, I do not disagree that each individuals subjectivity is an existent phenomena, as refers to your second listed point.

As to statements that express objectivity (however you define that) is better than subjectivity (again, however you define that), I would agree would be a subjective preference statement, as regards your first listed point.

Setting all that aside, is it, in your opinion, possible to distinguish or discern the objective, as distinct and separate from the subjective? You refer to making a model of subjectivity. Can one make a model of objectivity?

Perhaps I am simply asking whether one can understand subjectivity objectively.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, I do not disagree that each individuals subjectivity is an existent phenomena, as refers to your second listed point.

As to statements that express objectivity (however you define that) is better than subjectivity (again, however you define that), I would agree would be a subjective preference statement, as regards your first listed point.

Setting all that aside, is it, in your opinion, possible to distinguish or discern the objective, as distinct and separate from the subjective? You refer to making a model of subjectivity. Can one make a model of objectivity?

Perhaps I am simply asking whether one can understand subjectivity objectively.

In a limited sense yes, but it is like describing something, but not doing it. You can describe subjectivity objectively, but you can't do subjectivity objectively.

 

[MikeF]

In a limited sense yes, but it is like describing something, but not doing it. You can describe subjectivity objectively, but you can't do subjectivity objectively.

Well, no, you can't do subjectivity objectively, I quite agree.

It seems we agree that we can discern between what is objective and what is subjective, and consequently, we can avoid treating something subjective as objective.

As long as we all acknowledge the same objective framework, we can then negotiate, compromise, find consensus, and accommodate our many differing subjective needs, wants, desires, hopefully to some mutual satisfaction for all.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, no, you can't do subjectivity objectively, I quite agree.

It seems we agree that we can discern between what is objective and what is subjective, and consequently, we can avoid treating something subjective as objective.

As long as we all acknowledge the same objective framework, we can then negotiate, compromise, find consensus, and accommodate our many differing subjective needs, wants, desires, hopefully to some mutual satisfaction for all.

No, because I need to eat you for dinner.

Yeah, tasteless joke. But the point is that you can solve opposite subjective needs and so on, objectively. If you could, they wouldn't be subjective, they would be objective.

 

[MikeF]

No, because I need to eat you for dinner.

Yeah, tasteless joke. But the point is that you can solve opposite subjective needs and so on, objectively. If you could, they wouldn't be subjective, they would be objective.

Well, right. If eating me for dinner was a subjective necessity for you, then you would simply have to remain subjectively unsatisfied (or unsatiated? ).

The concern for me has been, as highlighted in many of our discussions, when imaginary abstraction is treated as objectively real and insistence that such imaginary abstractions must be universally accepted as objective. That creates an environment in which subjective negotiation is not conducted withing the same objective framework, rather, negotiation is held with innumerable non-objective imagined frameworks which seems to reenforce incompatibility and inhibit compromise or consensus.

All I advocate, is that if we can identify the objective, do so, and use that as the basis or common framework for evaluating and negotiating over our subjective differences.

 

[MikeF]

Moral judgments, aesthetic judgments, decisions about applications of science, and conclusions about the supernatural are outside the realm of science,

I do it differently.

I would say, for me, it depends on how one understands or defines the endeavor of Science. At it's most basic, science, like philosophy of the past, is simply the endeavor of asking and answering all the general and fundamental questions that we human beings have been asking since our beginnings, but with the express acknowledgement of our imperfections and fallibilities that impact our ability to successfully accomplish this task of finding such answers, and to actively attempt to mitigate our imperfections and fallibilities in our inquiries. That is all that science is. The objective knowledge gained from such scientific inquires can then be used to inform our subjective decisions and negotiations; to provide the shared objective framework for our subjective interactions.

For me then, nothing is outside the realm of science, for it is science that gives us a shared objective anchor or foundation upon which to evaluate and make informed decisions about morals and ethics, decisions about applications of science or conclusions about ideas categorized as supernatural.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, right. If eating me for dinner was a subjective necessity for you, then you would simply have to remain subjectively unsatisfied (or unsatiated? ).

The concern for me has been, as highlighted in many of our discussions, when imaginary abstraction is treated as objectively real and insistence that such imaginary abstractions must be universally accepted as objective. That creates an environment in which subjective negotiation is not conducted withing the same objective framework, rather, negotiation is held with innumerable non-objective imagined frameworks which seems to reenforce incompatibility and inhibit compromise or consensus.

All I advocate, is that if we can identify the objective, do so, and use that as the basis or common framework for evaluating and negotiating over our subjective differences.

Noble idea. The problem is that objective nature as biology allows for power and the right of might too.

 

[MikeF]

Noble idea. The problem is that objective nature as biology allows for power and the right of might too.

Certainly. All human endeavor is subject to human behavior.