Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
LastLast
  1. #21
    Void Lord Doctor Amadeus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    In Security Watching...
    Posts
    43,696
    Quote Originally Posted by Fencers View Post
    Objective truth is independent of what people do, interpret, use, feel or understand that truth. Or it would not be objective.

    Something being objectively true (e.x 5*4=20) is totally separate thing from how that truth or fact is incorrectly implement by an individual(s). The former is not made untrue by the latter.
    You are giving an example of math. Certainly Science has as much to do with truth in language.

    How do we KNOW that man evolved from earlier primate?

    And I do NOT mean to put you on the spot or asking for a really long answer, anything will do, something along the lines than a mathematics equation. If you can't or don't want to that's fine the purpose for me asking isn't to test how much you know.

    But rather to point out that other factors of science and how things come to be or not, rely on information being basically broken down, and I am saying that in that process fact can become fiction real damn fast.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Pterodactylus View Post
    Please notice the second part of my comment. I have considered it. I think its a huge issue that we as a society need to remedy.
    Yeah, I hear you, and my belief is the Remedy has to come from not hiding or making education or information take a back seat, science and what we know about the world should be front and center and so too should the debates. HARD DEBATES, because right now the consequences is that people really don't know the WHY like they used to and it's getting worse.
    Milli Vanilli, Bigger than Elvis

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Mall Security View Post
    Ok now pause for a second and consider that for a moment, then consider how much of a buzzword science, or saying something is scientific, or a fact has become. Yet we are still a nation with nearly half the country comprised of one political party that denies global warming. Because some meteorologist said so.

    Scientists can say things that aren't based in actual science though, or even straight out be unscientific (one person on these forums that in some fashion is working with global warming-issues, if I understood things correctly, has for example refered to objective genetic facts as "intolerant" and likened those touting those objective facts to nazis). Another issue that is at least tangential to the problem you are referring to, is that people do not seem to understand the difference between the natural sciences and the social sciences. The former is the one that can proudly flaunt its stance on objectivity, not the latter (gender studies being a notable example among many, and philosophy is basically devoid of truths altogether). Especially not in regards to conclusions derived from it, which sometimes amount to, quite simply, propaganda.

    Not to mention that some people seem to think that one article presenting data in support of something means that it is now an established truth - which is of course simply false. I have often been in the position of having read, say 6, scientific articles for work in order to elucidate something or other, and still not being any closer to having an accurate overall picture - simply since 3 of those articles are saying one thing, and the 3 others say, more or less, the exact opposite. It takes quite some data and replication before something can be trusted fully.
    Last edited by Sama-81; 2016-01-24 at 03:31 PM.

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Mall Security View Post
    You are giving an example of math. Certainly Science has as much to do with truth in language.
    Science works under reasonable assumptions to a certain degree.

    The temperature at which water freezes or boils can be quantified. However, we can not say water boils or freezes at X degrees universally (this is different from objectively). Because it simply would not be an objective truth if one were in boiling a pot of ramen in the Florida lowlands and I was boiling the same volume of water in Denver.

    You are simply mixing things up here. To be objective as in an objective truth (or fact, more accurately) is literally defined by: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased.

    The insertion or consideration of any kind of personal perspective to a object truth is invalid. It would not objective if that were the case and the use of language as such was done in error or ignorance.

    Science allows us to provides a lot of reasonable assumptions. These are not all or the same as objective fact or truth. Science is pretty careful on what it claims to be an object fact for this very reason.

  4. #24
    The Insane Underverse's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    The Underverse
    Posts
    16,333
    Quote Originally Posted by Hubcap View Post
    Everything is relative to the person.

    Moral relativists, the people who believe in science, don't believe in good or evil for example, or love so they see things much differently than I do.
    Uhhhhh no. Moral relativists might as well be nihilists, or at the very least expressivists, because that's what relativism boils down to. If you want to believe in science, you base a moral theory on physical laws, which you can do by using evolution as a proxy.

  5. #25
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    the other
    Posts
    58,334
    It really depends on the observation you are making.

    The formula is subjective, but the results are objective. You need to know the conditions under which the results are derived from. With the assumption that the same conditions, would always result in the same outcome. In casual 'debates' the outcome is usually known and the debate actually centers around how the outcome is reached. Making perspective critical to knowing how to lead a person to the same conditions that lead you to said outcome.
    Folly and fakery have always been with us... but it has never before been as dangerous as it is now, never in history have we been able to afford it less. - Isaac Asimov
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    No amount of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi

  6. #26
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Quetzl View Post
    Uhhhhh no. Moral relativists might as well be nihilists, or at the very least expressivists, because that's what relativism boils down to. If you want to believe in science, you base a moral theory on physical laws, which you can do by using evolution as a proxy.
    They are liars real nihilist would know that their efforts are futile

    It's just a post modernist deflection an cheap attempt to obfuscate the issue by changing the scale of relevance into arbitrary territory.
    What is even "bad" behaviour and suddenly it isn't about the poor dude who got stabbed.

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Quetzl View Post
    Uhhhhh no. Moral relativists might as well be nihilists
    Dubious. Being a moral relativist can be inclusive to cultural application of moral practice. Nihilism by it's nature invalidates consideration of moral practice- you can not consider something you claim can not be known or considered.

    It's just a post modernist deflection an cheap attempt to obfuscate the issue by changing the scale of relevance into arbitrary territory.
    Moral relativism dates back as far as the 5th century. Modern seems to be loosely applied in this your post.

  8. #28
    Void Lord Doctor Amadeus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    In Security Watching...
    Posts
    43,696
    Quote Originally Posted by Fencers View Post
    Science works under reasonable assumptions to a certain degree.

    The temperature at which water freezes or boils can be quantified. However, we can not say water boils or freezes at X degrees universally (this is different from objectively). Because it simply would not be an objective truth if one were in boiling a pot of ramen in the Florida lowlands and I was boiling the same volume of water in Denver.

    You are simply mixing things up here. To be objective as in an objective truth (or fact, more accurately) is literally defined by: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased.

    The insertion or consideration of any kind of personal perspective to a object truth is invalid. It would not objective if that were the case and the use of language as such was done in error or ignorance.

    Science allows us to provides a lot of reasonable assumptions. These are not all or the same as objective fact or truth. Science is pretty careful on what it claims to be an object fact for this very reason.
    Right and I am not really arguing what science is, but more on the contrary, I agree with what you are saying, but unfortunately, that idea, does not meet reality, which is exactly why we have just as many people or more moving away from science.

    But as I said like with people who believe global warming is a myth, the U.S also has the only Museum in the world where people believe dinosaurs walked with man, and they are being told that by people that for all intense purpose should know better and probably do.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Sama-81 View Post
    Scientists can say things that aren't based in actual science though, or even straight out be unscientific (one person on these forums that in some fashion is working with global warming-issues, if I understood things correctly, has for example refered to objective genetic facts as "intolerant" and likened those touting those objective facts to nazis). Another issue that is at least tangential to the problem you are referring to, is that people do not seem to understand the difference between the natural sciences and the social sciences. The former is the one that can proudly flaunt its stance on objectivity, not the latter (gender studies being a notable example among many, and philosophy is basically devoid of truths altogether). Especially not in regards to conclusions derived from it, which sometimes amount to, quite simply, propaganda.

    Not to mention that some people seem to think that one article presenting data in support of something means that it is now an established truth - which is of course simply false. I have often been in the position of having read, say 6, scientific articles for work in order to elucidate something or other, and still not being any closer to having an accurate overall picture - simply since 3 of those articles are saying one thing, and the 3 others say, more or less, the exact opposite. It takes quite some data and replication before something can be trusted fully.
    I am not really disagreeing with everything you stated, but the fact is regardless to those realities, the fact is science, BASIC Science something that objectively there really is no variation for truth, much of it is very political now more than ever.
    Milli Vanilli, Bigger than Elvis

  9. #29
    Deleted
    when it comes to politics there is no truth, there are several versions of it

    what's best for any society is a shot in the dark more often than not

    hard scientific facts can't be argued, so one's perspective matters little when it comes to that

  10. #30
    The Insane Underverse's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    The Underverse
    Posts
    16,333
    Quote Originally Posted by Fencers View Post
    Dubious. Being a moral relativist can be inclusive to cultural application of moral practice. Nihilism by it's nature invalidates consideration of moral practice- you can not consider something you claim can not be known or considered.
    You don't need to be a relativist to accept different and equally moral ways of accomplishing a task. But regardless, that's why I followed up that statement with mentioning expressivism.

  11. #31
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    the other
    Posts
    58,334
    Quote Originally Posted by Taftvalue View Post
    when it comes to politics there is no truth, there are several versions of it

    what's best for any society is a shit in the dark more often than not
    That's not really true. In politics, everyone wants what is best. That is true regardless of who the politician is. What you are looking for is the formula that leads to what is best. That's where the differences actually lie, between propaganda and rhetoric, it's perspective.
    Folly and fakery have always been with us... but it has never before been as dangerous as it is now, never in history have we been able to afford it less. - Isaac Asimov
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    No amount of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi

  12. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Mall Security View Post
    I am not really disagreeing with everything you stated, but the fact is regardless to those realities, the fact is science, BASIC Science something that objectively there really is no variation for truth, much of it is very political now more than ever.

    But that issue lies solely on the shoulders of politics, in that case, as opposed to on the shoulders of science. Truths can not be ignored or hidden away simply due to being politically uncomfortable or similar. If politics can't handle scientific truths, then it's not worth the time of day in the first place, and should be adjusted accordingly. If we do go that route, more or less censoring science, we have truly devolved as a society, imo to the degree of being straight out uncivilized. What does, perhaps, lie on the shoulders of science, is rather to be open about what science says and what the objective truths are, in order to prevent "false prophets" from hiding "propaganda" under the guise of being science.

  13. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Mall Security View Post
    Right and I am not really arguing what science is, but more on the contrary, I agree with what you are saying, but unfortunately, that idea, does not meet reality, which is exactly why we have just as many people or more moving away from science.
    Again, you are mixing things up.

    It is impossible for an objective truth to no longer be an object truth due to personal interpretation or perspective. Or it would not have been objectively true in the first place.

    Global Warming is not an objective truth. Evolution is not an objective truth. They are things we think are very, very, very likely true. Assuming they are objective truths is incorrect; such an argument has no validity.

    The square root of 168 is 12.9, at 1 atmosphere of pressure water boils @ 212 degrees. These are objective truths.

    12.9 is the answer regardless of how you feel, think or care about triangles.

    There is no such thing as one being able to make an objective truth or fact not so by virtue of opinion or perspective.

    You are talking about different things.

  14. #34
    The Unstoppable Force Ghostpanther's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    USA, Ohio
    Posts
    24,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Mall Security View Post
    Yeah, I disagree, I think most things are relative to the person, but some things are very much like science, unfortunately while science is a tool that is, biased people are, and just like any other form of form of knowledge faith or otherwise, people can use any thing as a way to hide.

    I have met just as many say rely on faith than sine if the most religious people I know, they also cherry pick and use what they know to HURT PEOPLE and look down on others also just as much.
    Those are called hypocrites. While any one can act hypocritical, what is important is if they recognize they are being so and make right to any they have done wrong by being so.

  15. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Quetzl View Post
    You don't need to be a relativist to accept different and equally moral ways of accomplishing a task. But regardless, that's why I followed up that statement with mentioning expressivism.
    Expressivism tackles the issue more from a position of cognition. Whereas Moral Relativism is concerned with cultural application. Whereas the former asserts an underlying agreement in the validity of truth relative to the claim and in non-cognitive expression be an application of what is truth.

    I understand your meaning though. The extension afforded by expressivism is sharp. I just wanted to point out that Nihilism really can't make the same inclusive claims that relativism can when and where concerning application ethics or moral practice.
    Last edited by Fencers; 2016-01-24 at 04:00 PM.

  16. #36
    Void Lord Doctor Amadeus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    In Security Watching...
    Posts
    43,696
    Quote Originally Posted by Sama-81 View Post
    But that issue lies solely on the shoulders of politics, in that case, as opposed to on the shoulders of science. Truths can not be ignored or hidden away simply due to being politically uncomfortable or similar. If politics can't handle scientific truths, then it's not worth the time of day in the first place, and should be adjusted accordingly. If we do go that route, more or less censoring science, we have truly devolved as a society, imo to the degree of being straight out uncivilized. What does, perhaps, lie on the shoulders of science, is rather to be open about what science says and what the objective truths are, in order to prevent "false prophets" from hiding "propaganda" under the guise of being science.
    Yeah, I agree with much of this also, I don't think science means we should lose our humanity or emotion, but I do think we need to be aware of it. Otherwise it can't really be controlled. There is a reason why as human beings for instance our social laws are enforced and created by people who are supposed to be impartial, but I think we have fail safes in place in case they aren't.

    Which is what I believe the U.S and the Constitution are supposed to be about, and why we the people are supposed to be the final authority and say, when it comes to all of it, yet we don't take much responsibility for any of it. The end result is the Perspective that we get, and the truth becomes subjective not objective.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Ghostpanther View Post
    Those are called hypocrites. While any one can act hypocritical, what is important is if they recognize they are being so and make right to any they have done wrong by being so.
    Yes,but people that know better need to step up and be those guardians again OR people collectively have to be educated. Because this idea that we can all just go back to our safe space is more than just an illusion made up by a few liberals. We have to be honest as a whole and we have to recognize truth especially when some things just aren't subjective like science, even when some try to make it that way.
    Milli Vanilli, Bigger than Elvis

  17. #37
    Legendary! Zecora's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Where the Zebras roam!
    Posts
    6,057
    Quote Originally Posted by dukrin View Post
    To what extent do you think a persons perspective is essential in finding the truth? Can knowledge be gained objectively?
    There is such a thing as objective truth. You'll never find it if you're a living breathing human.

  18. #38
    Void Lord Doctor Amadeus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    In Security Watching...
    Posts
    43,696
    Quote Originally Posted by Fencers View Post
    Again, you are mixing things up.

    It is impossible for an objective truth to no longer be an object truth due to personal interpretation or perspective. Or it would not have been objectively true in the first place.

    Global Warming is not an objective truth. Evolution is not an objective truth. They are things we think are very, very, very likely true. Assuming they are objective truths is incorrect; such an argument has no validity.

    The square root of 168 is 12.9, at 1 atmosphere of pressure water boils @ 212 degrees. These are objective truths.

    12.9 is the answer regardless of how you feel, think or care about triangles.

    There is no such thing as one being able to make an objective truth or fact not so by virtue of opinion or perspective.

    You are talking about different things.
    Yeah, I don't think you understand what I am saying, and I don't think I am going to get it across to you either. I know and understand what science is, and you damn sure seem to know.

    But what you fail to realize and I don't think I can get you to understand is a good chunk of HUMANITY doesn't operate that way, that sticky icky eww eww emotional flesh bags that vote, that war that kill one another and assign politics and resources that very much decide the fate and determine that world you life in as much as the science you do understand.

    Knowledge when it isn't understood and better yet when it isn't actually earned is easily perverted and misused. If you don't get that, then I did my best haha!

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Yirrah View Post
    There is such a thing as objective truth. You'll never find it if you're a living breathing human.
    If that is the case then there really is no such thing as a Justice system either.
    Milli Vanilli, Bigger than Elvis

  19. #39
    The Lightbringer Ahovv's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,015
    Quote Originally Posted by Mall Security View Post
    Ok now pause for a second and consider that for a moment, then consider how much of a buzzword science, or saying something is scientific, or a fact has become. Yet we are still a nation with nearly half the country comprised of one political party that denies global warming. Because some meteorologist said so.
    We also live in a society where virtually everyone is unaware of the Federal Reserve and how it has destroyed the value of the dollar in the past century, crushing the lower classes in the process.

  20. #40
    Legendary! Zecora's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Where the Zebras roam!
    Posts
    6,057
    Quote Originally Posted by Mall Security View Post
    If that is the case then there really is no such thing as a Justice system either.
    Oh, there are plenty of justice systems. Most are unjust in some way or other, but they still work as they are based on the common (as opposed to absolutely objective, which would be nigh impossible) conception of justice.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •