Objective, Subjective, Confusion, Reconciliation

[Polymath257]

"vaccinations can markedly reduce adverse outcomes of COVID-19" is an objective truth. It's a statement. It being objectively true is not scientific, it's analytical. It's analytical based on an inductive truth.

Huh? It's objectively true because it has empirical (scientific) evidence to back it up.

 

[Polymath257]

Could you give me an axiom that have not been demonstrated to be in accordance with reality? I just want to see what you mean.

Thanks.

The Continuum Hypothesis in math.

The axiom that heavy things fall faster than lighter things.

The axiom that all movement requires a force.

 

[Willamena]

What is your definition of a mountain? Is it different to what a mountain really is? does that make a mountain not a mountain because you have a subjective so called "definition"?

If you're in a strange land and suddenly a flood occurs, and people yell: "Run towards the mountain!" I doubt that there would be any hesitation about which direction to turn.

 

[Polymath257]

That's a whole different ball game. It's irrelevant.

You have misunderstood it completely. It's a thought experiment to explain what objective morality means. Not an accusation.

A default morality is not the same as an objective morality.

That primates tend to have certain default social rules does not make those social rules objective.

 

[Tiberius]

Truth is subjective say some. I hear this from atheists mostly, in this forum. Not "most atheists" but "mostly atheists". It's not true. It's nuanced.

In studies of sociology or sociology of religion, one outcome taught as fact is that religious truths are subjective. For example, an Ethiopian Jesus is black. An American Jesus is white. Sometimes even God is white for an American, and vice versa. This is subjective truth. But that does not mean there are no objective truths. An American some time ago would have thought a mountain close by was the tallest mountain in the world. Maybe, an American who traveled the whole land at that time and explored every inch would have thought that's the whole world, and what ever the tallest mountain he found was the tallest mountain in the world. That's his truth. Subjective. Because the subjective truth of a Sherpa in the Himalaya's was his subjective truth. Today we know, the Everest is the tallest mountain in the world, and that's an objective fact. Where ever you travel in the universe, and even if you find a million taller mountains around the universe, the Everest will always be the tallest mountain on earth, and that's objectively true. It's an objective fact. The Sherpa were not necessarily "right" in finding an absolute truth about the Everest, but it's just that they have not met the Americans and both have not measured the other's mountain to exchange notes and decide which one is taller. Thus, in studies of sociological background, you don't call it an absolute truth because it's an inductive finding. That does not mean the Everest is not the tallest mountain on earth once you map it out.

Philosophers predominantly have favoured objective truth's although there were philosophers who proposed relative truths like Protagoras. Yet, generally philosophers believe that "What is true is true for all of us, full stop, whether or not we are aware of it". Even atheists.

A child may not know who the mother is, but there is a mother somewhere, and that's objectively true. It's an objective fact. If it's proven via DNA analysis that lady A is the mother, it's an objective fact, not relative. But from a child's perspective she may not be the mother. That's only perspective, but not an objective truth. This is a problem with those who claim that IF there is a God, his perspective is subjective as much as human perspective is subjective. It's not correct. It's false reasoning. When a child is born, and comes out of the mothers womb, she knows the child is hers but from a child's perspective it maybe completely different. That does not mean the mother's knowledge is also subjective. It's absurd, unless there is a problem in epistemology or epistemic biases.

Einstein said that no one would have been taken seriously who failed to acknowledge the quest for objective truth and knowledge as man's highest and eternal aim.

Qualia does not mean there is no objective truths which is a usual thought experiment or example taken to explain this in philosophy. An orange, when cut up and you make a juice out of it, several different people will have subjective experiences. One might think it's too sweet, the other that it's sour etc. But that does not mean the orange is not round or that it's an orange, or that it's a fruit or that it's orange in colour. Though you may have subjective experiences, there is an objective truth. It's an axiom that analytical truths are true in any world or any universe. One cannot escape that fact, just because we may have some inductive truths that changed in time or because we have relative truths.

I put this in the science and religion section because science seem like something atheists value a lot. Science does not necessarily work with objective truths but will endeavour within inductive truths, though the ultimate aim is the find objective truths as an epistemic stance of the person. Like Einstein says above. Just because science is an inductive method, that does not mean there is no objective truths in this world. By observation people detected that the sun revolves around the earth, and other people detected that the earth revolves around the sun. This does not mean there is no objective fact. Either this or that is an objective truth. Or, there maybe another third option one would find one day which maybe an objective truth. The fact is, either this or that is true. Objectively.

In this discussion, I would like to hear how people think and make philosophical arguments about the topic.

Cheers.

I wouldn't say that truth is subjective, but then, it depends on what kind of truth you are talking about.

I think it is true that chocolate ice cream tastes better than vanilla ice cream. I think we can all agree that this is a SUBJECTIVE truth, as there are no doubt plenty of people who think vanilla is better than chocolate. Since "chocolate is better than vanilla" is true based on my opinion, it is subjective. It is not true for all people. (In fact, the only objective truth here is, "Tiberius thinks chocolate is better than vanilla," and that is an objective truth that I hold a particular opinion and makes no comment about whether the opinion itself is objective truth or not.)

But there are most certainly objective truths, and any truth presented as science would have to be such an objective truth. It is an objective truth that all points on the circumference of a circle are the same distance away from the center, for example. This truth is clearly objective in nature.

So I would agree. Any truth that is warranted to be called TRUE is an objective truth. Any truth that is subjective is really just opinion. And there's nothing wrong with opinions. They just aren't objectively true.

 

[firedragon]

See my first post in this thread. Little point in repeating myself, if you wanted to address it you would have done so by now.



Seems to be the latter.

See my first post in the thread.



See pretty much all my posts in this thread.

There are no proper explanations. Most of them are strawman arguments irrelevant to this thread and insults. So thanks for contributing to this thread but maybe this exchange should end now. Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

A default morality is not the same as an objective morality.

Yeah. That explanation is not mine. It's atheist philosophers. Please read a bit on objective morality because you are making an invalid disassociation here.

 

[firedragon]

When you quote a post it puts the directive QUOTE with a lead { and a trailing } In the rest of this post I first show the the result then how it's done adding a space before the leading QUOTE so make it visible.



[ QUOTE="firedragon, post: 7800468, member: 45358"]How do you quote a post within a quoted post?

If you hit the + sign, you'll see the quote option which adds a quote directive in a highlighted area.



[ QUOTE]and the result is like this[ QUOTE="firedragon, post: 7800468, member: 45358"]How do you quote a post within a quoted post?[/QUOTE][/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

Oh right right. Thanks sun rise. I shall try it next time. Thanks a lot.

 

[firedragon]

Ok fair enough, have to admit that I have no clue what this thought experiment is about. Do you have a video or link to where they are discussing it, would like to know what its actually about?

Hmm. I don't know any videos.

It's about objective morality. You know what? There is a philosopher called Loftus. I will see if I can find something from him. He is an atheist.

 

[firedragon]

I don’t think we need a definition as to what a mountain is.

But there needs to be definition as to what you mean by “the tallest” mountain.

There are two objective ways to physically measure the heights of each mountain.

Since you have brought up Everest as example in your OP, so I will use this too.

Of all the mountains on Earth, Everest is indeed has the highest “elevation”, which is 8849 metres (rounded; more precisely 8848.86m).

To understand what I mean by “elevation”. That means a measurement from the peak or summit to the sea level.

Another way to measure a mountain is from top of Everest to the base or foot of the mountain only measure at the most 5200 metres from the Tibetan plateau side. And if you measure from base at the southern side of Everest, it’s height is even shorter, at 4200 metres. So the heights varied if you measure the base from the southern side or base from the Tibetan Plateau’s side.

In Hawaii, Mauna Kea only measured at 4205 metres above sea level (elevation measurement), but Mauna Kea is much taller when measured from the base of mountain, with total height of 10,200 metres. Mauna Kea’s base is underwater, being measure from mid-ocean floor.

The elevation measurement (above sea level) and the summit-to-base measurement can differ greatly.

So if you are only basing the height of the mountain from sea level to the summit, then Everest is indeed tallest of all mountains.

But if you measure the mountain from its base to its summit, then Mauna Kea is the tallest.

So there are really two types of measurements. Both are objective, but claiming which is the tallest, really depends on you comparing heights by elevation or base measurement.

In total height (base-to-summit), Mauna Kea is about 5000 metres taller than Everest.

Lol. Okay. Forget about a mountain.

How much sea can be seen on the surface of the earth? Is it more than land?

I am only speaking about what can be seen. Is it more than 70% sea? Is that an objective truth or a subjective truth?

 

[firedragon]

I don't see truth as subjective. I simply think it's an overused term, and commonly jammed on top of opinion as a means of silencing dissent.

Though scholarship of truths being subjective is old, the popularity and such hard adoption of it is quite new.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Though scholarship of truths being subjective is old, the popularity and such hard adoption of it is quite new.

Not by me though...lol

 

[firedragon]

How is it irrelevant? Your OP made a claim about what mostly atheists believe.

No.

 

[firedragon]

1. Give an example?

2. Only to the extent that mathematical truths are deductions from given axioms. Whether those axioms are true is irrelevant to math.

No. You have to understand it. Not aim to keep arguing no matter what.

Learn about what philosophers call a mathematical truth, or ask someone.

 

[firedragon]

Not by me though...lol

I can see that.

 

[firedragon]

The Continuum Hypothesis in math.

The axiom that heavy things fall faster than lighter things.

The axiom that all movement requires a force.

Look at the proponents answer in Ell's post. You will see how far away you are on this.

 

[firedragon]

If you're in a strange land and suddenly a flood occurs, and people yell: "Run towards the mountain!" I doubt that there would be any hesitation about which direction to turn.

No no. They will all say that my mountain is subjective to me and run towards the iron.

 

[We Never Know]

Huh? It's objectively true because it has empirical (scientific) evidence to back it up.

Not so.

There is evidence people died even though they had the vaccine.

What evidence is there that those who took the vaccine and lived would have died without it?

 

[We Never Know]

The Continuum Hypothesis in math.

The axiom that heavy things fall faster than lighter things.

The axiom that all movement requires a force.

"heavy things fall faster than lighter things"

Not always...only in certain conditions

 

[firedragon]

I wouldn't say that truth is subjective, but then, it depends on what kind of truth you are talking about.

I think it is true that chocolate ice cream tastes better than vanilla ice cream. I think we can all agree that this is a SUBJECTIVE truth, as there are no doubt plenty of people who think vanilla is better than chocolate. Since "chocolate is better than vanilla" is true based on my opinion, it is subjective. It is not true for all people. (In fact, the only objective truth here is, "Tiberius thinks chocolate is better than vanilla," and that is an objective truth that I hold a particular opinion and makes no comment about whether the opinion itself is objective truth or not.)

But there are most certainly objective truths, and any truth presented as science would have to be such an objective truth. It is an objective truth that all points on the circumference of a circle are the same distance away from the center, for example. This truth is clearly objective in nature.

So I would agree. Any truth that is warranted to be called TRUE is an objective truth. Any truth that is subjective is really just opinion. And there's nothing wrong with opinions. They just aren't objectively true.

Chocolate or Vanilla being better is subjective. Forget two different flavours, if you read the OP I have spoken of the orange. One single orange will have different outcomes for different people.

It's true that a circles circumference is an objective fact. But you see, there are proponents of subjectivism who will argue that the definition of circumference should be questioned. Is it actually circular? Maybe the circle is a square but it's just some optical illusion. etc etc etc.

What I disagree with your post is calling subjective truths "opinions". It's true that people state their opinions. But even if they don't say their opinion, two different people will secretly have two different experiences with vanilla ice cream. That's subjective.

I remember there was a study on breath. Wait, not breath but body odour. Or was it pheromones? Anyway, one persons smell is very pleasing to one person, but is unpleasant to another. I am speaking about a father's smell to a child. A mans smell to his wife. It's subjective. There has been many studies like this done. Even about Radio advertising.

So even if people don't state their opinion, they will have subjective experiences.

Great post. Thanks.