Objective Truth

[Willamena]

The meaning of the statement "the orange exists" is truth (if it is true) but the statement itself is simply a perception of truth because a statement cannot exist independently of the person who stated it.

I think you're confusing a statement of truth for the truth. They're not the same thing (and it would make sense of your objection to what I'd said).

When we make a statement about the truth of a thing, it's about a characteristic of the thing itself (specifically a characteristic of its existence), which is objective to us. That characteristic is truth, not our statement about it. Our statement is a separate thing, it is "the truth we speak".

The only time there is a complete correlation between truth and our perception of it is when we can be said to know something.

That statement is true of belief. Our beliefs are "the truth we know."

 

[Radio Frequency X]

In the sciences, objectivity is neutral. Its a good way of gathering information without getting our biases or emotions involved. When our biases get involved, the following conclusion of our studies and experiments will also be biased.
I may have used a bad example in the OP when relating truth to a bias.

I guess a better way to state it, is that Objectivity is as neutral as we can force ourselves to be. But if the purpose for objectivity is understanding, than the question is not whether objective truth exists as an absolute, but whether or not the pursuit of objective truth produces greater understanding.

 

[Cynic]

I guess a better way to state it, is that Objectivity is as neutral as we can force ourselves to be. But if the purpose for objectivity is understanding, than the question is not whether objective truth exists as an absolute, but whether or not the pursuit of objective truth produces greater understanding.

Exactly. My whole arguement is not meant to confuse, or distract, or take objectivity to an extreme. I am trying to make a point how sometimes what we see as truth can conflict with objectivity, as truth is not fully objective. Objectivity is in a sense, not fully reachable, but we can strive to be as objective as we can. In the process we produce so much more greater understanding.

Take for instance:

I don't think I entirely agree with your definition of objective. To me, objective means everyone can see it. It is not subject to opinion because it's right in front of everyone in plain sight. For example, right now everyone here in my apartment right now can objectively verify that my HP printer is sitting on the table.

Of course its common sense that what is seen is a printer sitting on the table, and this is intersubjectively verifiable. However in the middle ages, it was common sense that the sun revolved around the earth, as did the stars. You can go outside and observe the sun. It does in fact appear to circle the earth, as it does not remain stationary, but circles in the sky. This was obvious to them, this was truth, and the evidence was literally clear as day.

Saying that the printer could be swimming, and not sitting on the table, is taking my point to an extreme. Of course on the quantum mechanical level, things start to make less sense. But that's beside the point that I'm trying to make.

 

[Willamena]

Truth cannot conflict with objectivity --the truth belongs to the objective perspective.

When I say, "The sun appears to revolve around the earth from the perspective of a person standing on the earth," that is an objective statement of truth. Truth belongs to the objective perspective.

 

[doppelganger]

When I say, "The sun appears to revolve around the earth from the perspective of a person standing on the earth," that is an objective statement of truth. Truth belongs to the objective perspective.

Not really.

The statement "The sun appears to revolve around the earth from my perspective" could be a true statement.

But as we all know, the fool on the hill sees the sun going down but the eyes in his head see the world spinning 'round. More information changes the perspective and therefore changes the "truth."

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

It is impossible to form a truth without forming a bias at the same time. Truth is therefore fundementally incompatible with objectivity.

Is that an objective statement? If so, you're thesis is self-contradictory from the outset.

 

[Cynic]

Truth cannot conflict with objectivity --the truth belongs to the objective perspective.

When I say, "The sun appears to revolve around the earth from the perspective of a person standing on the earth," that is an objective statement of truth. Truth belongs to the objective perspective.

That is an statement that aims to be objective. I don't agree that truth belongs to the objective perspective. When observers standing on the earth see the sun circling the earth, while the earth is stationary, the sun is seen as revolving around the earth. That is their interpretation of what is true.

When we say something is true we make an assertion. When we say something may be true, or is likely, or appears to be, we are more closer to being objective.

 

[Willamena]

Not really.

The statement "The sun appears to revolve around the earth from my perspective" could be a true statement.

But as we all know, the fool on the hill sees the sun going down but the eyes in his head see the world spinning 'round. More information changes the perspective and therefore changes the "truth."

The truth doesn't change with a change in perspective, all the changes is the perspective. If the truth is to be held it must be held in context.

 

[Willamena]

That is an statement that aims to be objective. I don't agree that truth belongs to the objective perspective. When observers standing on the earth see the sun circling the earth, while the earth is stationary, the sun is seen as revolving around the earth. That is their interpretation of what is true.

It is a statement that utilizes the objective perspective. It looks down upon a man standing on the earth as if from a great height, and takes into consideration his perspective in what he sees. The man, from his perspective, has a subjective perspective, but the maker of the above statement uses an objective perspective to communicate the truth.

It is true, is it not, that that is what the man on the earth sees under the given circumstances? He sees the sun passing through the sky.

When we say something is true we make an assertion. When we say something may be true, or is likely, or appears to be, we are more closer to being objective.

To the man on the earth, appearances are everything --from the subjective perspective, they are all that matters. The objective perspective, though, dispenses with a subject, and therefore with a subjective view.

 

[doppelganger]

The truth doesn't change with a change in perspective, all the changes is the perspective. If the truth is to be held it must be held in context.

But it does change in your example. Like the fool on the hill, I don't interpret the sun as moving around the Earth. Likewise, when the Earth was flat, the sun moved across the sky but not necessarily "around" the Earth. There is no "perspective" that isn't an interpretation once its been reduced to a thought or a word.

 

[Cynic]

The truth doesn't change with a change in perspective, all the changes is the perspective. If the truth is to be held it must be held in context.

From what I'm getting, our interpretations of what truth is, is different, and in someways similar.

You believe truth to exist regardless of how we perceive things.

However I see truth as being part of perception, and part of how we see things. Truth does change, because it is a part of perspective. It exists only in the mind of the observer, and becomes irrelevant on an extreme level of objectivity. That level is of course impossible to acheive while we are stuck in our subjective box. There is no truth without the observer, everything just "is" in absolute neutrality.

 

[Willamena]

You believe truth to exist regardless of how we perceive things.

Not really; I believe truth to exist as a characterstic of perceived things. Characteristics include our interpretation of things.

However I see truth as being part of perception, and part of how we see things. Truth does change, because it is a part of perspective. It exists only in the mind of the observer, and becomes irrelevant on an extreme level of objectivity. That level is of course impossible to acheive while we are stuck in our subjective box. There is no truth without the observer, everything just "is" in absolute neutrality.

I think we're more alike than not alike in our defintions.

 

[Willamena]

But it does change in your example. Like the fool on the hill, I don't interpret the sun as moving around the Earth. Likewise, when the Earth was flat, the sun moved across the sky but not necessarily "around" the Earth. There is no "perspective" that isn't an interpretation once its been reduced to a thought or a word.

Did you mean that it "does change" from my example to yours?

Whether or not you know the earth to be moving around the sun, isn't the appearance of the other still true? Even though I know the moon to be spherical, isn't the appearance of a crescent true?

I agree wholeheartedly that both the subjective and objective perspectives are interpretation. I'm simply saying that truth belongs to the objective one.

 

[doppelganger]

Did you mean that it "does change" from my example to yours?

No. I mean it changes for me depending on how I relate the "things" from which my statement is composed.

Whether or not you know the earth to be moving around the sun, isn't the appearance of the other still true?

No. That's an interpretation. You have created two things, "Earth" and "Sun" and imagined a relationship between them from which the relative motion between the two is drawn. If you change the meaning of either word or change how you imagine the relationship, then you'll change your "truth." For example, what if I live on an island and have no concept of the Earth being round at all? Or what if I think of the Sun as part of the Earth's sky, or a dying and resurrecting God who is reborn each day from the womb of the Eastern Wind to die each night in the arm's of his West Wind Lover? And moving "across" the sky is a common methaphor for the movement of the sun, right?

Even though I know the moon to be spherical, isn't the appearance of a crescent true?

Someone with blurred vision might not see a crescent though, right?

You are getting closer to inductive reasoning (which is still not "objective truth") with this statement compared to the one about the relationship between the sun and the Earth. If you were to reduce "crescent appearance" to a set of measurements and parameters, you could compare those measurements and parameters with those experienced by someone else and make predictions about an individual's sensory experience of the moon. At some point it is reasonable to conclude based on observation, repeatability and comparison that a "person is very likely to see the moon as having a measurable visual appearance matching criteria we call a 'crescent'".

 

[Willamena]

No. I mean it changes for me depending on how I relate the "things" from which my statement is composed.

But how has that changed truth of the statement that *I* made? How isn't that statement still true?

No. That's an interpretation.

What isn't interpretation?

You have created two things, "Earth" and "Sun" and imagined a relationship between them from which the relative motion between the two is drawn. If you change the meaning of either word or change how you imagine the relationship, then you'll change your "truth." For example, what if I live on an island and have no concept of the Earth being round at all? Or what if I think of the Sun as part of the Earth's sky, or a dying and resurrecting God who is reborn each day from the womb of the Eastern Wind to die each night in the arm's of his West Wind Lover? And moving "across" the sky is a common metaphor for the movement of the sun, right?

You've simply recognized a truth, or a new level of truth if you like, by adding new context; the old truth is still valid in its context (in this case, the literal).

Someone with blurred vision might not see a crescent though, right?

The statement is made about me, though, and I do see. There is no reason to assume a statement made about a truth about me should hold for anyone else.

You are getting closer to inductive reasoning (which is still not "objective truth") with this statement compared to the one about the relationship between the sun and the Earth. If you were to reduce "crescent appearance" to a set of measurements and parameters, you could compare those measurements and parameters with those experienced by someone else and make predictions about an individual's sensory experience of the moon. At some point it is reasonable to conclude based on observation, repeatability and comparison that a "person is very likely to see the moon as having a measurable visual appearance matching criteria we call a 'crescent'".

The statement is about "the appearance of the moon from the perspective of one person." That is an objective look at something they experience --any given instance of that experience. Your restating of that is no less objective and says practically the same thing, with the added measure that (for some reason) you extend one experience through time to include multiple experiences. Or perhaps I'm missing your point.

 

[doppelganger]

But how has that changed truth of the statement that *I* made? How isn't that statement still true?

Because the statement you made wasn't limited to you. Check the change I made to that statement in the post right after it [#25] Notice the change I made to your statement.

You've simply recognized a truth, or a new level of truth if you like, by adding new context; the old truth is still valid in its context (in this case, the literal).

Not in the sense of the statement ""The sun appears to revolve around the earth from the perspective of a person standing on the earth" it doesn't, because that statement itself is not limited to the context in which it is made. Which is why I suggested that it needs to be chagned to: "The sun appears to revolve around the earth from my perspective" for it to be true.

The statement is about "the appearance of the moon from the perspective of one person." That is an objective look at something they experience --any given instance of that experience. Your restating of that is no less objective and says practically the same thing, with the added measure that (for some reason) you extend one experience through time to include multiple experiences. Or perhaps I'm missing your point.

I think you are. As you'll note from my first post above, I agree that a purely objective statement about how "I" perceive things can be true. However, that is not what your statement was. Rather I suggested a variation on that statement that did not reach beyond its perspective. And, as modified, I agree the statement could be true.

 

[Willamena]

Because the statement you made wasn't limited to you. Check the change I made to that statement in the post right after it [#25] Notice the change I made to your statement.

Ah! Good catch. That statement was a generalisation, and that does reflect on its truthfulness when applied to individuals in a group.

Not in the sense of the statement "

The sun appears to revolve around the earth from the perspective of a person standing on the earth" it doesn't, because that statement itself is not limited to the context in which it is made. Which is why I suggested that it needs to be chagned to: "The sun appears to revolve around the earth from my perspective" for it to be true.

I think you are. As you'll note from my first post above, I agree that a purely objective statement about how "I" perceive things can be true. However, that is not what your statement was. Rather I suggested a variation on that statement that did not reach beyond its perspective. And, as modified, I agree the statement could be true.

Alright; not surprising, that, but even so, you were making some point about the meaning of symbols. Can you re-state it in light of the corrected statement? I would maintain that looking at the symbols in a new light doesn't change the old light, just adds a new light, because everything exists in contexts (part of it being meaningful).

The statement I made, "Even though I know the moon to be spherical, isn't the appearance of a crescent true?" is objective, because it's about the appearance of the moon, not about me or my knowledge.

(As an aside, I had reason to ponder about light at coffee break, namely that the limited visual spectrum that we see can be held as an analogy for the limited perception of reality our senses are able to detect. As such, that there could be a lot more to the table I was leaning on than is dreamt of in my philosophy.)

 

[Random]

The objective truth of this thread, I feel I must add @ this point, is that proof of the existence and entertainment value of turgid, unproductive intellectuality and wibblesome musings is not hard to find on RF.