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

[mikkel_the_dane]

Indeed, that is my opinion.

Can you provide evidence for this claim? Or will 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?

Then we have different opinions and they are real, though not a part of the external world.
The external world is necessary, but not sufficient to being a human.
Do you agree on that?

If you can agree on that, then we agree. And then I retract and what not.

 

[AppieB]

Then we have different opinions and they are real, though not a part of the external world.
The external world is necessary, but not sufficient to being a human.
Do you agree on that?

This is what I mean with sloppy thinking:
The external world is not necessary. It is not logical necessary that the external world is real.
We presuppose the external world is real.

And yes, the external world (2) is not sufficient to being a human. It starts all with our conscience experience (1)
You remember the two things we already agreed upon?

If you can agree on that, then we agree. And then I retract and what not.

Please answer the question:
Can you give me one example of evidence in the external world (2) that is subjective?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This is what I mean with sloppy thinking:
The external world is not necessary. It is not logical necessary that the external world is real.
We presuppose the external world is real.

And yes, the external world (2) is not sufficient to being a human. It starts all with our conscience experience (1)
You remember the two things we already agreed upon?

Please answer the question:
Can you give me one example of evidence in the external world (2) that is subjective?

Yeah, can you show that all cases of harm are universally the same for all humans and it is not so that something can cause one human harm, but not another?
I don't want those cases that are universal. I want you to answer if you have looked for cases, where it is not the case. That is in effect your claim if I recall right; i.e. that harm is universally so for all humans. Or if it is not your claim then consider this over.

So that is where it ends.
And, no, the external world is objective, so nothing in the external world can be subjective. That follows from the meaning of the words.

 

[AppieB]

Yeah, can you show that all cases of harm are universally the same for all humans and it is not so that something can cause one human harm, but not another?
I don't want those cases that are universal. I want you to answer if you have looked for cases, where it is not the case. That is in effect your claim if I recall right; i.e. that harm is universally so for all humans. Or if it is not your claim then consider this over.

What has this to do what I've said about reality and evidence? I have never said nor implied that harm is universally the same. Yet anorther straw man and deviation to the subject, my replies and questions.
When do you start arguing in honesty?

So that is where it ends.
And, no, the external world is objective, so nothing in the external world can be subjective. That follows from the meaning of the words.

So then you agree that evidence in the external world is objective. Yet not long ago you argued that some evidence in the external world is subjective.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What has this to do what I've said about reality and evidence? I have never said nor implied that harm is universally the same. Yet anorther straw man and deviation to the subject, my replies and questions.
When do you start arguing in honesty?

So then you agree that evidence in the external world is objective. Yet not long ago you argued that some evidence in the external world is subjective.

So I apologize as relevant and give you this post of yours:

God can not be disproven by science

nor do you need to argue that Abrahamic religion is a fairy tale or conspiracy to pervert. I don't claim that it's all fairy tales. I simply don't believe the claims of any of those religions about gods, their alleged commandments I need to obey, afterlives, spirits or magic. then show us all...

www.religiousforums.com

So is this relevant for all cases of wellbeing/harm - Is it true that stabbing a random person with a knife is detrimental to that person's well being?
Or did I have a point - There is no singular human well being...

And is wellbeing objective or subjective? Or a combination in a sense?

 

[Balthazzar]

For example for what the universe is and if that is known and so on, there are a lot of possible answers that include a lot of words in different combinations.

One example - it is known as true with reasonable certainty that the universe is...
So what is your own worldview for what knowledge and all those other concepts are? And please include other concepts than those I listed if relevant.

So here is mine as a skeptic. Since I can't know what objective reality is in itself, I act with faith and belief in that the universe is epistemologically fair, real, orderly and knowable. But I accept that other belief systems are possible.

As for debate. Well, what is truth and are there only one form or many? The same for other concepts and it connects to universal versus relative.

I can claim objective for the lot, and I can claim subjective as an individual, so objective ... although experienced subjectively remains an objective reality (truth), observable and evident across the larger spectrum. I don't know that the universe is fair, but I can observe that the universe operates via laws, namely physics and there's a reason or process for everything that takes place in it. Fairness is a subjective value determination. The universe can be known only inasmuch as we capable of observing it through our subjective lenses, which change and develop through the processes of life and adaptation. We advance our capabilities in other words. Experience is truth, or rather experience is real. The truth part of the equation can be misleading. The shadow from the tree and the howl of the wind looked and sounded like an angry wolf. It wasn't. It was frightening, but it was also unwarranted. Why?

It was just a shadow. The experience was real enough to feel frightened, though.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I can claim objective for the lot, and I can claim subjective as an individual, so objective ... although experienced subjectively remains an objective reality (truth), observable and evident across the larger spectrum. I don't know that the universe is fair, but I can observe that the universe operates via laws, namely physics and there's a reason or process for everything that takes place in it. Fairness is a subjective value determination. The universe can be known only inasmuch as we capable of observing it through our subjective lenses, which change and develop through the processes of life and adaptation. We advance our capabilities in other words. Experience is truth, or rather experience is real. The truth part of the equation can be misleading. The shadow from the tree and the howl of the wind looked and sounded like an angry wolf. It wasn't. It was frightening, but it was also unwarranted. Why?

It was just a shadow. The experience was real enough to feel frightened, though.

Well, I believe differently for what we can know about objective reality in itself. But thanks for your answer and we otherwise agree.

 

[AppieB]

So I apologize as relevant and give you this post of yours:

God can not be disproven by science

nor do you need to argue that Abrahamic religion is a fairy tale or conspiracy to pervert. I don't claim that it's all fairy tales. I simply don't believe the claims of any of those religions about gods, their alleged commandments I need to obey, afterlives, spirits or magic. then show us all...

www.religiousforums.com

So it this relevant for all cases of wellbeing/harm - Is it true that stabbing a random person with a knife is detrimental to that person's well being?
Or did I have a point - There is no singular human well being...

The experience one has being stabbed by a knife is different for everyone.
However, it is still objectively true that stabbing a person with a knife is detrimental to that person's well being/health.

And is wellbeing objective or subjective? Or a combination in a sense?

There are little differences in what one considers to be well being that are on a subjective level. For instance: listening to loud techno music. For me it's a pleasure, for some it's agony. Those depend on the subjective experience.
But when it comes to health (that is part of well being) it is not a matter of opinion that drinking battery acid is detrimental for your health and therefore well being. It is a matter of fact (objective) that drinking battery acid is detrimental for your health. This refers to the "body" part that is external to yourself and part of the external world.

Just because it is not absolutely clear what we mean by well being, doesnt mean there is nothing objective to say about it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The experience one has being stabbed by a knife is different for everyone.
However, it is still objectively true that stabbing a person with a knife is detrimental to that person's well being/health.

There are little differences in what one considers to be well being that are on a subjective level. For instance: listening to loud techno music. For me it's a pleasure, for some it's agony. Those depend on the subjective experience.
But when it comes to health (that is part of well being) it is not a matter of opinion that drinking battery acid is detrimental for your health and therefore well being. It is a matter of fact (objective) that drinking battery acid is detrimental for your health.

Just because it is not absolutely clear what we mean by well being, doesnt mean there is nothing objective to say about it.

If I want to die, it is better for me to be stabbed to death than not.
The problem is the fact of death versus whether I want to die. Those are not the same.

There is a reason that some countries have assisted suicide.
Here is the theoretical problem. You can't observe wellbeing. You subjectively feel it.
And yes, there are otherside causes sometimes, but that is not always so.

So no, for wellbeing as wellbeing that is not objective for any of these version of that word:
-expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
- of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind
-involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects, conditions, or phenomena
-perceptible to persons other than the affected individual

Definition of OBJECTIVE

expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations; limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

As for subjective:
-relating to or being experience or knowledge as conditioned by personal mental characteristics or states
-peculiar to a particular individual : personal
-modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background
-arising from conditions within the brain or sense organs and not directly caused by external stimuli
-arising out of or identified by means of one's perception of one's own states and processes

Definition of SUBJECTIVE

of, relating to, or constituting a subject: such as; of, relating to, or characteristic of one that is a subject especially in lack of freedom of action or in submissiveness; being or relating to a grammatical subject; especially : nominative… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

And now, please explain objectively detrimental and well as in well being as relevant for all of the meanings of objective and subjective as per this:
However, it is still objectively true that stabbing a person with a knife is detrimental to that person's well being/health.

 

[AppieB]

If I want to die, it is better for me to be stabbed to death than not.
The problem is the fact of death versus whether I want to die. Those are not the same.

If you want to die then that is an expression of your (subjective) preference/goal that is internal to you.
So if you want to die, then it is objectively true that shooting yourself in the head with a pistol will achieve (when aimed precisely) that goal.
Nothing complicated.

There is a reason that some countries have assisted suicide.
Here is the theoretical problem. You can't observe wellbeing. You subjectively feel it.
And yes, there are otherside causes sometimes, but that is not always so.

Of course we can. We have all kind of metrics in which we can observe well being. Like phisical and mental health, psychological studies that show that opportunities to develop and learn contributes to happiness. Just because there a little differences per person doensn't mean there isn't a big denominator that determines the well being of people.

So no, for wellbeing as wellbeing that is not objective for any of these version of that word:
-expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
- of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind
-involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects, conditions, or phenomena
-perceptible to persons other than the affected individual

Definition of OBJECTIVE

expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations; limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Again, it is a fact that drinking battery acid is detrimental for your health.

As for subjective:
-relating to or being experience or knowledge as conditioned by personal mental characteristics or states
-peculiar to a particular individual : personal
-modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background
-arising from conditions within the brain or sense organs and not directly caused by external stimuli
-arising out of or identified by means of one's perception of one's own states and processes

Definition of SUBJECTIVE

of, relating to, or constituting a subject: such as; of, relating to, or characteristic of one that is a subject especially in lack of freedom of action or in submissiveness; being or relating to a grammatical subject; especially : nominative… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

And here we are again when we talk about facts about subjective experiences. One can make objective true statements about subjective opinions. It is an objective fact that some people don't like coriander (I'm one of them). My disgust for coriander is a subjective matter, but the fact remains I don't like coriander.

And now, please explain objectively detrimental and well as in well being as relevant for all of the meanings of objective and subjective as per this:
However, it is still objectively true that stabbing a person with a knife is detrimental to that person's well being/health.

Health has a variety of definitions, which have been used for different purposes over time. In general, it refers to physical and emotional well-being, especially that associated with normal functioning of the human body, absent of disease, pain (including mental pain), or injury.

Health - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So by that definition it is objectively true that stabbing a person with a knife is detrimental to their health.

 

[AppieB]

So how do you combine objective and subjective as in effect contradictory for this? What is objectively true about that I subjectively like philosophy?

It is objectively true for the subjective part of liking, that... as I subjectively like philosophy.
Please for ... make an objectively true statement about subjectively liking.

We've been over this for days when I first talked about this a long time ago. And ultimately you agreed to this.
I already gave an example: it is objectively true that some people don't like coriander.
Let me make it more simple: it is objectively true that people have subjective experiences.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We've been over this for days when I first talked about this a long time ago. And ultimately you agreed to this.
I already gave an example: it is objectively true that some people don't like coriander.
Let me make it more simple: it is objectively true that people have subjective experiences.

Yeah, we don't agree now, so I put you on ignore for now.

 

[AppieB]

Yeah, we don't agree now, so I put you on ignore for now.

Of course you don't. I already expected this reaction. What’s the point in having a conversation if we have to put every word we’re using under a semantic magnifying glass? Why even define "subjective" an "objective" if its all up for debate? In your worldview everything is ultimately subjective, so your definition of “objective” has become meaningless. Every time someone puts your worldview to the test you hide behind semantics. That is your ultimate dodge/escape. You don’t value “epistemic honesty”. You avoid it.

I also have no purpose for this kind of conversations so from now on you can ignore all my posts in the future.

 

[cladking]

Well, yes. It makes sense, but we still disagree when it gets closer to what truth and science is.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean here; whether you disagree with me or we all disagree with one another.

People not only tend to agree on religious matters such as those who are Catholics and those who are Buddhists but scientists tend to agree more as well unless you are talking about something like anthropologists and archaeologists who will be prone to more disagreement.

The bottom line is nobody whether Baptist or entomologist really knows anything at all but rather we share languages and perspectives. Just as religion and science have splintered into thousands and thousands each evolves and becomes unrecognizable after several generations. We try not to see this but it still exists and there's still no evidence anyone has achieved any sort of truth or is even approaching it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm not entirely sure what you mean here; whether you disagree with me or we all disagree with one another.

People not only tend to agree on religious matters such as those who are Catholics and those who are Buddhists but scientists tend to agree more as well unless you are talking about something like anthropologists and archaeologists who will be prone to more disagreement.

The bottom line is nobody whether Baptist or entomologist really knows anything at all but rather we share languages and perspectives. Just as religion and science have splintered into thousands and thousands each evolves and becomes unrecognizable after several generations. We try not to see this but it still exists and there's still no evidence anyone has achieved any sort of truth or is even approaching it.

Yeah, you and I disagree over what science is. And yet, we agree on in effect limited cognitive, moral and cultural relativism as far as I can tell.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

For example for what the universe is and if that is known and so on, there are a lot of possible answers that include a lot of words in different combinations.

One example - it is known as true with reasonable certainty that the universe is...
So what is your own worldview for what knowledge and all those other concepts are? And please include other concepts than those I listed if relevant.

So here is mine as a skeptic. Since I can't know what objective reality is in itself, I act with faith and belief in that the universe is epistemologically fair, real, orderly and knowable. But I accept that other belief systems are possible.

As for debate. Well, what is truth and are there only one form or many? The same for other concepts and it connects to universal versus relative.

With regards to the nature of the universe, I don't think we can know, but I think we can approximate. The way to arrive at this is via scientific method, which includes the necessity of logic in order to interpret the data.

 

[simsi]

I can claim objective for the lot, and I can claim subjective as an individual, so objective ... although experienced subjectively remains an objective reality (truth), observable and evident across the larger spectrum. I don't know that the universe is fair, but I can observe that the universe operates via laws, namely physics and there's a reason or process for everything that takes place in it. Fairness is a subjective value determination. The universe can be known only inasmuch as we capable of observing it through our subjective lenses, which change and develop through the processes of life and adaptation. We advance our capabilities in other words. Experience is truth, or rather experience is real. The truth part of the equation can be misleading. The shadow from the tree and the howl of the wind looked and sounded like an angry wolf. It wasn't. It was frightening, but it was also unwarranted. Why?

It was just a shadow. The experience was real enough to feel frightened, though.

Hello a newbie to this, scrolling through the thread. I stopped here. Reading the above, something came to mind regarding the oppositions subjective vs objective, experience vs truth (in a sense) as in the above example of the shadow and the fearful experience of it etc.

As you'd probably agree, sensation, speaking briefly, needs correcting when we're trying to establish the externally real. In addition to the shadow illustration, there are other sensory experiences, real in themselves of course, that may also instill what turn out to be unfounded emotional reactions, but anyway illustrate the oppositions raised above and what I mean by correction.

Aboard a ship we literally see the shore moving. This is the unanalysed data. And we see the sun moving, and feel and see a flat world, and the stars as tiny and so on. This is the absolute sensory data.

By reasoning we correct these subjective experiences. 'Correct' is shorthand for a long story which isn't relevant now. But anyway by reasonably corrected sensation we establish what's really the case outside our bodies in the world we get to know (again 'know' is shorthand, irrelevant now). That is, since, other than internal feelings, sensations come upon us involuntarily and sense we must, naturally we seek the source and this ends the immediate question until it arises again. That is, we explain why we had the sensations, establishing that the ship is in reality moving, the sun stationary, the earth spherical, the stars massive etc. The case, in reality, we say.

Of course I've missed out the middle step that the question arises usually because sensations, often through instrumentation, are had which conflict. We step off the boat and sense the ground is still. But already we've passed beyond mere immediate sensations, memory coming in and the thinking process.

On the other hand, one is sometimes amazed at how far pure reasoning goes with really scant sensory data. Einstein's thought experiments are a case in point, even contradicting the apparently obvious - a mark of so-called genius I suppose.

Sensations are true in the one sense that they exist just as a delusion is truely, i.e. really had. However in the other sense above, uncorrected by reasoning about extra- sensory causes, they're often untrue and even considered unreal, as is the paradigmatic mirage of water in the desert.

I've probably belabord the point and I definitely haven't acknowledged all the points we agree on. And I've limited experience to sensations and thinking for this initial response. Basically I wanted to introduce reason and it's interaction with sensory data, and to comment on the issues above, e.g. reality, truth, objectivity, subjectivity etc. I felt systematic thinking explaining experience wasn't broached, at least not in this particular post. Cheers

 

[cladking]

Hello a newbie to this, scrolling through the thread. I stopped here. Reading the above, something came to mind regarding the oppositions subjective vs objective, experience vs truth (in a sense) as in the above example of the shadow and the fearful experience of it etc.

As you'd probably agree, sensation, speaking briefly, needs correcting when we're trying to establish the externally real. In addition to the shadow illustration, there are other sensory experiences, real in themselves of course, that may also instill what turn out to be unfounded emotional reactions, but anyway illustrate the oppositions raised above and what I mean by correction.

Aboard a ship we literally see the shore moving. This is the unanalysed data. And we see the sun moving, and feel and see a flat world, and the stars as tiny and so on. This is the absolute sensory data.

By reasoning we correct these subjective experiences. 'Correct' is shorthand for a long story which isn't relevant now. But anyway by reasonably corrected sensation we establish what's really the case outside our bodies in the world we get to know (again 'know' is shorthand, irrelevant now). That is, since, other than internal feelings, sensations come upon us involuntarily and sense we must, naturally we seek the source and this ends the immediate question until it arises again. That is, we explain why we had the sensations, establishing that the ship is in reality moving, the sun stationary, the earth spherical, the stars massive etc. The case, in reality, we say.

Of course I've missed out the middle step that the question arises usually because sensations, often through instrumentation, are had which conflict. We step off the boat and sense the ground is still. But already we've passed beyond mere immediate sensations, memory coming in and the thinking process.

On the other hand, one is sometimes amazed at how far pure reasoning goes with really scant sensory data. Einstein's thought experiments are a case in point, even contradicting the apparently obvious - a mark of so-called genius I suppose.

Sensations are true in the one sense that they exist just as a delusion is truely, i.e. really had. However in the other sense above, uncorrected by reasoning about extra- sensory causes, they're often untrue and even considered unreal, as is the paradigmatic mirage of water in the desert.

I've probably belabord the point and I definitely haven't acknowledged all the points we agree on. And I've limited experience to sensations and thinking for this initial response. Basically I wanted to introduce reason and it's interaction with sensory data, and to comment on the issues above, e.g. reality, truth, objectivity, subjectivity etc. I felt systematic thinking explaining experience wasn't broached, at least not in this particular post. Cheers

You're not wrong but even a baby knows whether its mother is moving toward it or it is moving toward the mother. A baby has only objective experience and ideas because it lacks symbolic, abstract, analog language that we use to think. A swallow fledgling knows it is moving close over the ground because it is beating its wings. It knows only its natural language and its own consciousness. It, too, is objective experience.

We do learn to interpret experience but first we unlearn the means of experiencing objectivity with which we were born. A baby nor a swallow knows how or why the earth rotates but they quickly learn day and night.

 

[paarsurrey]

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

" Revelation, Rationality, Knowledge & Truth "

Revelation, Rationality, Knowledge & Truth

Right?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

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

" Revelation, Rationality, Knowledge & Truth "

Revelation, Rationality, Knowledge & Truth Right?

"
Any divide between revelation and rationality, religion and logic has to be irrational. If religion and rationality cannot proceed hand in hand, there has to be something deeply wrong with either of the two.

Does revelation play any vital role in human affairs? Is not rationality sufficient to guide man in all the problems which confront him? Numerous questions such as these are examined with minute attention.

All major issues which intrigue the modern mind are attempted to be incorporated in this fascinatingly comprehensive statute.

Whatever the intellectual or educational background of the reader, this book is bound to offer him something of his interest.

It examines a very diverse and wide range of subjects including the concept of revelation in different religions, history of philosophy, cosmology, extraterrestrial life, the future of life on earth, natural selection and its role in evolution. It also elaborately discusses the advent of the Messiah, or other universal reformers, awaited by different religions. Likewise, many other topical issues which have been agitating the human mind since time immemorial are also incorporated.

The main emphasis is on the ability of the Quran to correctly discuss all important events of the past, present and future from the beginning of the universe to its ultimate end.

Aided by strong incontrovertible logic and scientific evidence, the Quran does not shy away from presenting itself to the merciless scrutiny of rationality.

It will be hard to find a reader whose queries are not satisfactorily answered. We hope that most readers will testify that this will always stand out as a book among books – perhaps the greatest literary achievement of this century."
By Mirza Tahir Ahmad.

Revelation, Rationality, Knowledge & Truth

Right?

Regards