Knowledge, evidence, truth, proof, assumption, axiom, belief, faith and so on

[Shadow Wolf]

I take hard facts to be truths. This is why I'm cautious when doing things like electrical work because there is no belief involved when it comes to the potential for serious injury and death (or getting ***** smacked by Mjölnir, as I call it after a mishap of my own). This is so well understood we have various formulae to describe the exact process and evem successfully manipulate this energy to do work for us.
Things like evolution too are true,hard facts. We simply have too much evidence across many disciplines (both natural and "soft") for it to reasonably be dismissed or have a reason to believe it happens. We know it does because we see it happening.
Belief is for things I can reasonably assume but lack sufficient evidence to have certainty. This is different from having confidence something will happen, such as, I have good reason to assume my car will work tomorrow because I have the evidence of it being in good, working order and it starting today. A belief is more an educated guess.

 

[AppieB]

Are both the subjective and objective part of the world?

We know our experience is real and we presuppose the objective world/reality is real. So the total sum of reality for you is your experience and the external world.

Can the subjective be reduced to being the objective, such that the subjective is not really real?

No, we already concluded (1) that our experience is real. We know for ourselved that our experience is real.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We know our experience is real and we presuppose the objective world/reality is real. So the total sum of reality for you is your experience and the external world.

No, we already concluded (1) that our experience is real. We know for ourselved that our experience is real.

Good, then is say the declaration of humans rights and that some people follow human rights subjective, objective, a combination or are these 2 concepts to simple?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Are both the subjective and objective part of the world? Can the subjective be reduced to being the objective, such that the subjective is not really real?

And how meaningful is the distinction between them anyway?
Is there a clearly defined boundary between the two? Or do they flow into, and help determine, each other?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I take hard facts to be truths. This is why I'm cautious when doing things like electrical work because there is no belief involved when it comes to the potential for serious injury and death (or getting ***** smacked by Mjölnir, as I call it after a mishap of my own). This is so well understood we have various formulae to describe the exact process and evem successfully manipulate this energy to do work for us.
Things like evolution too are true,hard facts. We simply have too much evidence across many disciplines (both natural and "soft") for it to reasonably be dismissed or have a reason to believe it happens. We know it does because we see it happening.
Belief is for things I can reasonably assume but lack sufficient evidence to have certainty. This is different from having confidence something will happen, such as, I have good reason to assume my car will work tomorrow because I have the evidence of it being in good, working order and it starting today. A belief is more an educated guess.

Yeah, and then there is all that is not hard facts as in effect subjective values for what matters.

 

[AppieB]

Good, then is say the declaration of humans rights and that some people follow human rights subjective, objective, a combination or are these 2 concepts to simple?

The declaration of human rights is a document (objective) based on our values (subjective) of society. Where are you going with this?
What has this to do about me having double epistemical standards?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The declaration of human rights is a document (objective) based on our values (subjective) of society. Where are you going with this?
What has this to do about me having double epistemical standards?

Well, maybe you don't. But if I recall correct you have a positive view of rational. Is that correct? If yes, is rational subjective or objective?
And in a broader sense are the norms of evidence subjective or objective?

Are that we agree on at least some aspects of evidence for the fact that we agree as agree subjective or objective?

 

[AppieB]

Well, maybe you don't.

Ok, so you retract that statement?

But if I recall correct you have a positive view of rational. Is that correct? If yes, is rational subjective or objective?
And in a broader sense are the norms of evidence subjective or objective?

So I guess now you are talking about epistemology. What do you mean by "positive view of rational"?
"Rationality is the quality of being guided by or based on reason. In this regard, a person acts rationally if they have a good reason for what they do, or a beliefis rational if it is based on strong evidence"

Rationality - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Are that we agree on at least some aspects of evidence for the fact that we agree as agree subjective or objective?

Evidence is objective.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ok, so you retract that statement?

So I guess now you are talking about epistemology. What do you mean by "positive view of rational"?
"Rationality is the quality of being guided by or based on reason. In this regard, a person acts rationally if they have a good reason for what they do, or a beliefis rational if it is based on strong evidence"

Rationality - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Evidence is objective.

We stop here. I retract my claim. And simply note that I don't agree that all forms of evidence are objective. And no, I don't want to debate that or anything.
I just want to get to the point where we disagree if that is so. And we got there. So thanks for saying with me and answering me.

 

[AppieB]

We stop here. I retract my claim. And simply note that I don't agree that all forms of evidence are objective. And no, I don't want to debate that or anything.
I just want to get to the point where we disagree if that is so. And we got there. So thanks for saying with me and answering me.

I think we should continue, because I feel in the next thread you are going to bring confusion again.
Every time we have a conversation you question these things that are obvious to the rest of us. When I talk about things in reality then 1 en 2 are implied in the context. So when I talk about reality, science, evidence, knowledge etc. there is no need to question if the external world we are experiencing is real. We already agreed about 1 en 2.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think we should continue, because I feel in the next thread you are going to bring confusion again.
Every time we have a conversation you question these things that are obvious to the rest of us. When I talk about things in reality then 1 en 2 are implied in the context. So when I talk about reality, science, evidence, knowledge etc. there is no need to question if the external world we are experiencing is real. We already agreed about 1 en 2.

Yeah, okay then.
I will use the cat on the mat from logical positivism. Now let say that we both observe that cat (yes, I know it is a thought experiment in a sense) and you say - the cat is black. We can nitpick that if you need to, but I will simply move on and ask you how you experience: Evidence is objective.

 

[AppieB]

Yeah, okay then.
I will use the cat on the mat from logical positivism. Now let say that we both observe that cat (yes, I know it is a thought experiment in a sense) and you say - the cat is black. We can nitpick that if you need to, but I will simply move on and ask you how you experience: Evidence is objective.

If we both observe the cat, then the cat is evidence for its existence. We have objective evidence that the cat is real. We could investigate further and touch the cat, we could ask other people to verify that the cat is real. We can document the cat with our phone and measure its dimensions.
I don't see what is the difficulty here.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If we both observe the cat, then the cat is evidence for its existence. We have objective evidence that the cat is real. We could investigate further and touch the cat, we could ask other people to verify that the cat is real. We can document the cat with our phone and measure its dimensions.
I don't see what is the difficulty here.

Now do the same as for the cat with - evidence is objective.

 

[AppieB]

Now do the same as for the cat with - evidence is objective.

We already agreed 2: The external world exists. So everything you consider the be evidence in the external world is objective.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We already agreed 2: The external world exists. So everything you consider the be evidence in the external world is objective.

Yeah, that is you saying that evidence is objective. But you saying that evidence is objective, is subjective as something you subjectively choose to do.
The sentence - evidence is objective - is not an objective fact with evidence. It is a subjective norm in you and so is the definition of rational.

And yes, a part of the world is objective, but not all of the world. For rational as a good reason, how do you observe the reason is good just as the cat is black.
That is my point. Subjectivity is not just a passive experience of the external world. In effect if you think your reasoning is rational, there is no objective evidence of that, because it is based on how you think.

So yes, subjectivity is real and you are actively doing it in this thread as how you make sense of the world for all its parts as relevant to you.

Cognitive Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

iep.utm.edu

That is my point. And yes, we agree to treat the external world as real. But that solves nothing about being a human for the subjective parts of making sense of how to live as a human for what matters.

So that is it. If you confuse subjective and objective I will continue to point it out and no, you can't live your life as only if the external reality is the world, so the moment you start evaluating human behaviour, we are in the la-la land of subjective

 

[AppieB]

Yeah, that is you saying that evidence is objective. But you saying that evidence is objective, is subjective as something you subjectively choose to do.
The sentence - evidence is objective - is not an objective fact with evidence. It is a subjective norm in you and so is the definition of rational.

"evidence is objective" is a statement regarding things/objects in the external world.
Can you give me one example of evidence in the external world (2) that is subjective?

And yes, a part of the world is objective, but not all of the world. For rational as a good reason, how do you observe the reason is good just as the cat is black.
That is my point. Subjectivity is not just a passive experience of the external world. In effect if you think your reasoning is rational, there is no objective evidence of that, because it is based on how you think.

Reasoning/rationalizing is not evidence. It is the mental process to evaluate the given evidence. You are involved in sloppy thinking to conflate the two.
The cat is evidence. Period! The process to evaluate the evidence is not evidence. It's is a process that we exercise with the mind, yes. That doesn't make the cat (evidence) subjective.

So yes, subjectivity is real and you are actively doing it in this thread as how you make sense of the world for all its parts as relevant to you.

Subjectivity is a concept. It is not real in the sense that it is part of the external world (2).

That is my point. And yes, we agree to treat the external world as real. But that solves nothing about being a human for the subjective parts of making sense of how to live as a human for what matters.

What matters to us has nothing to do with investigating the external world. I don't know why you bring this up in regard to your example of the cat.

So that is it. If you confuse subjective and objective

The person who is confused is you. I don't conflate the two. You do, constantly.

I will continue to point it out and no, you can't live your life as only if the external reality is the world

When did I ever said this???

, so the moment you start evaluating human behaviour, we are in the la-la land of subjective

Evaluating human behaviour? You mean the behaviour of humans in the external world?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

"evidence is objective" is a statement regarding things/objects in the external world.
Can you give me one example of evidence in the external world (2) that is subjective?


Reasoning/rationalizing is not evidence. It is the mental process to evaluate the given evidence. You are involved in sloppy thinking to conflate the two.
The cat is evidence. Period! The process to evaluate the evidence is not evidence. It's is a process that we exercise with the mind, yes. That doesn't make the cat (evidence) subjective.

Subjectivity is a concept. It is not real in the sense that it is part of the external world (2).

What matters to us has nothing to do with investigating the external world. I don't know why you bring this up in regard to your example of the cat.

The person who is confused is you. I don't conflate the two. You do, constantly.

When did I ever said this???

Evaluating human behaviour? You mean the behaviour of humans in the external world?

Yeah, I subjectively think/feel and thus act differently than you in some cases. And you have no evidence as objective that it is sloppy thinking.
So that is not real as for the external world.

That is the joke of your worldview. You use words that are not about the external, real, objective world and yet you act as if they are.

 

[Madsaac]

Knowledge, evidence, truth, proof, assumption, axiom, belief, faith firstly depends on your level of consciousness.

Knowledge, beliefs, truths and understanding can be gained in two ways
Rationalism (Nature) and Empiricism (Nurture)

And you can express this knowledge, beliefs, truths and understanding in two main ways:
Subjectively (Opinion) such as feelings, interpretations, thoughts. (Doesn't always need evidence of some sort)
Objectively (Fact) For example, physics. (Always needs evidence of some sort)

Is it fair to say that what one person sees as an objective reality is different from the next person. And there are only a handful of objective truths like maths and physics? Everything else is on a 'scale' of some sort? (100% to 0% real). For example, I might see an object and say the object is an objective reality (99% real) whereas someone else may say its still subjective?

I say its an objective reality because the evidence to me is near absolute. (99% real)

I agree we are subjective beings and what we believe is from a subjective viewpoint however at what level depends on the evidence available. Evidence allows individuals to move along the 'scale' from more of a subjective belief towards an objective belief (Rarely getting there). So in other words evidence is critical for a belief to be more 'real'.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Knowledge, evidence, truth, proof, assumption, axiom, belief, faith firstly depends on your level of consciousness.

Knowledge, beliefs, truths and understanding can be gained in two ways
Rationalism (Nature) and Empiricism (Nurture)

And you can express this knowledge, beliefs, truths and understanding in two main ways:
Subjectively (Opinion) such as feelings, interpretations, thoughts. (Doesn't always need evidence of some sort)
Objectively (Fact) For example, physics. (Always needs evidence of some sort)

Is it fair to say that what one person sees as an objective reality is different from the next person. And there are only a handful of objective truths like maths and physics? Everything else is on a 'scale' of some sort? (100% to 0% real). For example, I might see an object and say the object is an objective reality (99% real) whereas someone else may say its still subjective?

I say its an objective reality because the evidence to me is near absolute. (99% real)

I agree we are subjective beings and what we believe is from a subjective viewpoint however at what level depends on the evidence available. Evidence allows individuals to move along the 'scale' from more of a subjective belief towards an objective belief (Rarely getting there). So in other words evidence is critical for a belief to be more 'real'.

Well, I don't believe in "real" like you do.
But otherwise I like your post.

 

[AppieB]

Yeah, I subjectively think/feel and thus act differently than you in some cases. And you have no evidence as objective that it is sloppy thinking.
So that is not real as for the external world.

Indeed, that is my opinion.

That is the joke of your worldview. You use words that are not about the external, real, objective world and yet you act as if they are.

Can you provide evidence for this claim? Or will you retract it later on?

What I notice is that you avoid specific questions and replies when it suits you. Can you have an honest dialogue and reply to what I've asked?
For instance:
Can you give me one example of evidence in the external world (2) that is subjective?