Subjective Proof

[bobhikes]

The objective fact is that a given liquid at a given pressure will boil at a specific temperature. Whether an individual has the capacity to determine that temperature doesn't matter, it doesn't affect the objective fact.
The boiling point has always been an objective fact, even before there were any people around to appreciate it.

But the person did have the ability to determine the temperature and it wasn't the same number.

It is only an objective fact if you meet all the scientific parameter's and even then there will be times it will not boil at said temperature. Atmospheric pressure, water content are not the only variables to boiling temperature.

Here's one more for you.

a lack of nucleation sites may allow water to boil beyond its boiling point, thus becoming superheated.

 

[Quintessence]

But we're not talking about qualia.

We're not? It doesn't seem to me that the OP specified one way or another on this.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Anyone can have evidence, which may be either objective or subjective, but proof is objective, it exists whether an individual is aware of it or not.

Not all proof is objective. I have proof that I was upset when someone stepped on my toes. My proof is that I cried. Without evidence (info for verification), it could be right or wrong. But its proof to me that the two have something to do with each other.

But if someone came up with evidence, then the info I had as proof of my conclusion is void. I can either defend my claim by providing more proof of my conclusions or I can accept he evidence (objective) that would invalidate my proof.

Example.

My experiences are (subjective) proof that god exists. I have evidence such the bible. Its purely subjective.

Experiences are purely subjective. However, many religious regardless the religion use them to confirm the evidence they have is valid.

You can change it to be objective.

History, culture, and the need to find meaning is recorded all history. In historical books and human nature are proof to this claim. The evidence is that we all will die and because of our natural physical and mental instinct to survive, both brain and body find ways to adapt to what we do not know.

Proof being history
Evidence being the actual books and chain of history prevalent in all cultures in all parts of the world in all time eras.

John's "fun" is subjective, it's a personal feeling that can't be demonstrated with empirical evidence. His trip to Califo

Yes. Thats what I said. He had fun when in Cali. His proof is the personal feeling he experienced. His evidence is he can talk about the places he went and people he saw. Its not objective. Personal feelings of fun can originate from any number of things.

Like god, all you can go off of is his experiences and how he came across his conclusions. We cant determine if he is telling the truth because his feeing can originate from anything. We cant take his word for it.

However, his trip to florida can be confirmed by a objective rather than sujective set of evidence. We see his name on the plane ticket, for example and can go back to see where he started and where we landed.

Proof and evidence arent objective nor sujective in nature. They just support the claim in the former and provides material etc to validate the proof for the latter.

But isn't experiential evidence subjective, by definitio

Thats what I wrote in my post.

Experiences like having fun and experiencing gods existence are highly subjective. The problem is trying to argue objective criteria on a subject thats purely subjective in nature.

 

[ChristineM]

I can't see proof as objective ever. The problem with proof and fact is that it is always subjective to the receiver. Something as simple as water boils at 212/100 degrees depends on where you are and quality of the water. You will get a different result with each. Now you need to investigate further as to why? Perhaps you don't want to so for you water always boils at 214/101 degrees. That is your proof. As long as your water supply or atmospheric pressure doesn't change the temperature water boils will always be the same. Not that you really care when your watching the pot.

Thats why altitude/air pressure are quoted when quoting boiling point of water. Water boils at 100c at sea level. It is objective

.

 

[Willamena]

Following evidence and threads of logic isn't private. It's objective. It's out there for anyone to use and arrive at a common conclusion.

Our individual thoughts, where evidence and logic ultimately reside*, are private. The study of logic has unraveled objective ways in which we all reason alike, but not all of us will utilize them in the same manner or to the same ends. We reason alike, but think uniquely.

*That something becomes "evidence" depends on a person's purpose. A tree may be evidence of a forest for an ecologist, but for the person who is simply looking for shade on a sunny day it is nothing more than a tree.

Subjective proof, it seems to me, would be a personal revelation or a mystical experience; something that can't be accessed by others.

The realization of a logical conclusion is a personal revelation, too. It happens in our thoughts. Yes, others' conclusions might be confirmation of its objectivity, but we own the conclusion that we had.

I can't see proof as objective ever. The problem with proof and fact is that it is always subjective to the receiver.

I guess it depends on what you mean. I see the world through fuzzy near-sightedness. Yet if this is the way that my eyes are given to interpret the world, then there is still truth in the world: that my eyes are given to interpret the world this way. Image things (propositions) as an artist, holding it up and turning it in his hand: there is always a way to turn a thing to see the fact about it.

The truth for most people is whatever they happen to accept as true based on whatever evidence they feel is appropriate to rely on.

Objective, you can show evidence to prove something true to someone other than yourself. The more folks you can convince of a truth based on given evidence the more objective that truth is.

The more objective a truth is the more reliable it is. Though all truths are fallible.

The truth, for most people, is what is believed, yes; we believe in things because they have the appearance of truth. "Objective" simply means what is true (fact) regardless of what you think of or about it (opinions). Something can be true to you, without your having to have someone else affirm it. Truth is what makes something objective: truth has the appearance of truth.

 

[Hawkins]

It's a kind of yes and no.

In reality more often it's not about what proof is, it is about how available proof is. Proof is scarce in reality that humans don't usually rely on proof to get to a truth. We know for a fact that black holes exist not because we are presented with evidence. It is because we have faith that our scientists are credible and it is them (eyewitnesses) who have the evidence.

 

[bobhikes]

Thats why altitude/air pressure are quoted when quoting boiling point of water. Water boils at 100c at sea level. It is objective

.

Here's another

a lack of nucleation sites may allow water to boil beyond its boiling point, thus becoming superheated.

 

[Valjean]

But the person did have the ability to determine the temperature and it wasn't the same number.

It is only an objective fact if you meet all the scientific parameter's and even then there will be times it will not boil at said temperature. Atmospheric pressure, water content are not the only variables to boiling temperature.

But an objective fact assumes these criteria. It doesn't matter whether a person's able to determine them or is even aware of the situation. Water's boiling point is an objective fact, the gravity of Mars is an objective fact, the eruption of Mt St Helen was an objective fact.
Objective facts aren't defined by people or their perception of them.
Q: How are you defining Objective Fact?

Here's one more for you.
a lack of nucleation sites may allow water to boil beyond its boiling point, thus becoming superheated.

OK... Is there a question in there you want me to respond to?

Not all proof is objective. I have proof that I was upset when someone stepped on my toes. My proof is that I cried. Without evidence (info for verification), it could be right or wrong. But its proof to me that the two have something to do with each other.

Yes -- subjective 'proof'. Me, I'd call it evidence. Proof is a mathematical construct, that's why science doesn't deal in proof, it deals with facts, ie: well evidenced probabilities.

But if someone came up with evidence, then the info I had as proof of my conclusion is void. I can either defend my claim by providing more proof of my conclusions or I can accept he evidence (objective) that would invalidate my proof.

[not quite sure I'm following, here...] I don't know about "invalidate." "Your" proof; your subjective experience would remain the same. Objective evidence would simply make it objectively real, in addition to subjectively.

My experiences are (subjective) proof that god exists. I have evidence such the bible. Its purely subjective.

I'd call it subjective evidence, but OK.
The Bible itself is an object. It's existence is an objective fact. The assertions in it are evidence. They may or may not be facts. Not all evidence is reliable or valid.

Experiences are purely subjective. However, many religious regardless the religion use them to confirm the evidence they have is valid.[/quote] Confirm it to themselves, I agree.

You can change it to be objective.
History, culture, and the need to find meaning is recorded all history. In historical books and human nature are proof to this claim. The evidence is that we all will die and because of our natural physical and mental instinct to survive, both brain and body find ways to adapt to what we do not know.

Proof being history

Not so much proof, but evidence -- and the reliability of the evidence would need to be determined before the historical reports were accepted.

Proof and evidence arent objective nor sujective in nature. They just support the claim in the former and provides material etc to validate the proof for the latter.

Proof is mathematically axiomatic. Evidence can be either objective, subjective, or both. If it's all in your head, it's subjective; apprehensible only to the subject of the experience.

Experiences like having fun and experiencing gods existence are highly subjective. The problem is trying to argue objective criteria on a subject thats purely subjective in nature.

No argument here,

 

[bobhikes]

Q: How are you defining Objective Fact?

I don't define Objective facts because they aren't real. Every Objective fact you mentioned has an exception, I could keep going with the exceptions for boiling water. Each Objective fact you state only applies to humans, any other species on the planet would not see it that way and if we ever met Aliens they would have their own objective view(Subjective if they were intelligent).

 

[ChristineM]

Here's another

a lack of nucleation sites may allow water to boil beyond its boiling point, thus becoming superheated.

And that too is still measurable and repeatable, making it objective

 

[Unveiled Artist]

But an objective fact assumes these criteria. It doesn't matter whether a person's able to determine them or is even aware of the situation. Water's boiling point is an objective fact, the gravity of Mars is an objective fact, the eruption of Mt St Helen was an objective fact.
Objective facts aren't defined by people or their perception of them.
Q: How are you defining Objective Fact?
OK... Is there a question in there you want me to respond to?
Yes -- subjective 'proof'. Me, I'd call it evidence. Proof is a mathematical construct, that's why science doesn't deal in proof, it deals with facts, ie: well evidenced probabilities.

[not quite sure I'm following, here...] I don't know about "invalidate." "Your" proof; your subjective experience would remain the same. Objective evidence would simply make it objectively real, in addition to subjectively.
I'd call it subjective evidence, but OK.
The Bible itself is an object. It's existence is an objective fact. The assertions in it are evidence. They may or may not be facts. Not all evidence is reliable or valid.

Experiences are purely subjective. However, many religious regardless the religion use them to confirm the evidence they have is valid.

Confirm it to themselves, I agree.
Not so much proof, but evidence -- and the reliability of the evidence would need to be determined before the historical reports were accepted.
Proof is mathematically axiomatic. Evidence can be either objective, subjective, or both. If it's all in your head, it's subjective; apprehensible only to the subject of the experience.
No argument here, [/QUOTE]

You are going into it more than my simple brain can think. Im very simple. I make a claim. I have proof. Here is the evidence.

Evidence can be objective or subjective (facts vs. experiences)

Proof can be subjective or objective (Claim: I had fun vs. I went to Cali)

If someone asked me to prove whether I had fun because of my trip, I can only give them subjective evidence, I can share my experiences

If they asked me to prove whether I went, I can give them my plane tickets

 

[Sir Doom]

Thats why altitude/air pressure are quoted when quoting boiling point of water. Water boils at 100c at sea level. It is objective

.

Luckily, its far easier to determine the highly objective measure 'at sea level' than it is to determine the objective temperature of water anywhere. Oh wait...

 

[bobhikes]

And that too is still measurable and repeatable, making it objective

Hasok Chang, professor at the University of Cambridge for History and Philosophy of Science, writes in The Myth of the Boiling Point:

We all learn at school that pure water always boils at 100°C (212°F), under normal atmospheric pressure. Like surprisingly many things that "everybody knows", this is a myth. We ought to stop perpetuating this myth in schools and universities and in everyday life: not only is it incorrect, but it also conveys misleading ideas about the nature of scientific knowledge. And unlike some other myths, it does not serve sufficiently useful functions.

There are actually all sorts of variations in the boiling temperature of water. For example, there are differences of several degrees depending on the material of the container in which the boiling takes place. And removing dissolved air from water can easily raise its boiling temperature by about 10 degrees centigrade.

 

[ChristineM]

Luckily, its far easier to determine the highly objective measure 'at sea level' than it is to determine the objective temperature of water anywhere. Oh wait...

'tiz easy to do,
ingredients, barometer, thermometer, water, heat.

All objective objects .

 

[ChristineM]

Hasok Chang, professor at the University of Cambridge for History and Philosophy of Science, writes in The Myth of the Boiling Point:

We all learn at school that pure water always boils at 100°C (212°F), under normal atmospheric pressure. Like surprisingly many things that "everybody knows", this is a myth. We ought to stop perpetuating this myth in schools and universities and in everyday life: not only is it incorrect, but it also conveys misleading ideas about the nature of scientific knowledge. And unlike some other myths, it does not serve sufficiently useful functions.

There are actually all sorts of variations in the boiling temperature of water. For example, there are differences of several degrees depending on the material of the container in which the boiling takes place. And removing dissolved air from water can easily raise its boiling temperature by about 10 degrees centigrade.

Pressure

Please provide evidence that water boils at different temperatures in different material containers. Assuming the pressure is consistent

Edit history and philosophy of science??? Do you not have a quote from a scientist?

 

[bobhikes]

Pressure

Please provide evidence that water boils at different temperatures in different material containers. Assuming the pressure is consistent

Edit history and philosophy of science??? Do you not have a quote from a scientist?

That was a quote from a Professor at the University of Cambridge

Here's one from a scientist at Science Direct.com Results in Physics

Our experimental results suggest that Magnetic Fields have changed some physical properties of water, including specific heat, evaporation amount and boiling point.

https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S2211379717317230-gr10.jpg

 

[Sir Doom]

'tiz easy to do,
ingredients, barometer, thermometer, water, heat.

All objective objects .

ICWUTUDIDTHAR!

Don't forget arbitrary human nomenclature. Gotta have some of that.

 

[Valjean]

I don't define Objective facts because they aren't real. Every Objective fact you mentioned has an exception, I could keep going with the exceptions for boiling water. Each Objective fact you state only applies to humans, any other species on the planet would not see it that way and if we ever met Aliens they would have their own objective view(Subjective if they were intelligent).

Objective facts are objective facts. Applications may change with different conditions, but E=MC^2 is the same even for Little Green Men.

You are going into it more than my simple brain can think. Im very simple. I make a claim. I have proof. Here is the evidence.

Evidence can be objective or subjective (facts vs. experiences)

Proof can be subjective or objective (Claim: I had fun vs. I went to Cali)

If someone asked me to prove whether I had fun because of my trip, I can only give them subjective evidence, I can share my experiences

If they asked me to prove whether I went, I can give them my plane tickets

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[bobhikes]

Objective facts are objective facts. Applications may change with different conditions, but E=MC^2 is the same even for Little Green Men.
Couldn't have said it better myself.

There was a time when scientists believed that but now we actually know. All hydrogen atoms are not the same, the weights are different, the spins are different, the electrical balance is different for each. All molecules are different made from different atoms and thus act differently. Water is made up of many different molecules with many different atoms if you want to boil it. If you went out enough decimals on the temperature you couldn't even get it to boil at the same temperature twice. Meaning it will always be subjective, if you don't understand this you never will.

 

[Valjean]

OK, if you're going to wander into quantum territory all bets are off.