Perspective and truth

[angelsdeath]

Why does it have to be objectively true?

The only real truth is objective.

[Doctor Amadeus]

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.

Interesting way to look at it, grimm but interesting.

[Felya]

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.

They are objectively true through. What makes those subjective, isn't their existence, but what the existence is meant to represent. A person should come to the same conclusion, if the formula is the same. What those who disagree with evolution are actually seeking as the truth is nature of life. As far as the answer to what evolution or global warming is, that is not subjective.

This is how intelligent people ending up sounding stupid. When you argue nature of life, the idea that evolution needs to be disproven is the wrong course of action. Evolution is true based on the formula that it results from, which doesn't mean that creationism is wrong, because it's derived from a different formula. You cannot come up with evolution by using a formula that results in creationism. Where it becomes subjective, is what does evolution or creationism mean when placed into a formula that results in nature of life. The argument of nature of life isn't actually based on creationism or evolution being right, but the subjective formula to an unknown answer.

If X is the nature of life, the simplistic formula is a+b=x. A creationist arguing nature of life by arguing against evolution, has to include evolution as part of the equation. Meaning that they are arguing that evolution is either a or b, while arguing that it's wrong. The actual argument is that it's neither a or b, but is creationism. It's why those arguing that evolution is part of creationism, where a being set evolution into motion, sound far more intelligent than those who argue creationism is the answer to the formula resulting in evolution. They are two different things, argued as a misunderstanding of what X is. In the argument of nature of life, X is neither evolution or creationism... They are part of the equation, which is subjective, as there is no objective answer until you can agree on the formula.

[Fencers]

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.

This is all irrelevant though.

Objective truth is independent of how humanity operates, feels, votes, et cetera. Or it would not be objective.

No amount of feeling, emotion or opinion can change the atomic mass of chlorine. That's objective truth and science.

Evolution or Global Warming are not objectively true. These are not valid arguments for objective truth. People can choose to not believe these things or disagree on their nature, data, observation, et cetera. Because we are not 100% certain of either- we are certain of composite elements of observation of these processes in certain circumstances. This is not the same as the truth of knowing the square root 168.

Nor do people have to give a flip about it all. Objective truth, by it's very definition, does not require anyone to believe in it. It is objectively true.

Knowledge when it isn't understood and better yet when it isn't actually earned is easily perverted and misused.

That's nice and all. Though irrelevant. Objective truth doesn't account for how people use or understand what is objectively true.

How we feel or what we do with object truth is 100% irrelevant in all circumstance to the objective truth.

[Sama-81]

Evolution or Global Warming are not objectively true. These are not valid arguments for objective truth. People can choose to not believe these things or disagree on their nature, data, observation, et cetera. Because we are not 100% certain of either- we are certain of composite elements of observation of these processes in certain circumstances. This is not the same as the truth of knowing the square root 168.

Evolution as a thing altogether, is as much objective truth as anything else can be. Exactly as much so as the sun being hot, or that birds can fly. Claiming otherwise is pure ignorance, there is no room for contrary, rational, belief whatsoever. Sure, someone can claim God made it all instead, and more importantly, is still doing so to the smallest little detail, but that is no more logical than someone claiming that he is a meatball and everyone else only exist in his dream. Either evolution as a concept is objective truth, or objective truth does not exist, it really is as simple as that.

Edit: As to your example in regards to the mass of chlorine - for one, we can only experience part of reality, a limited amount of dimensions, and are thus limited to what we can see, measure and understand - how we see chlorine and it's mass, might be a gross simplification of how things work in a more complex reality we are eternally shut out from - who knows? Which for that matter is the only way evolution would be erroneous as a concept as well, more or less. We know exactly what we see, and it would take concepts we can't begin to understand to change the truth of it.

[Slant]

This is all irrelevant though.

Objective truth is independent of how humanity operates, feels, votes, et cetera. Or it would not be objective.

No amount of feeling, emotion or opinion can change the atomic mass of chlorine. That's objective truth and science.

Evolution or Global Warming are not objectively true. These are not valid arguments for objective truth. People can choose to not believe these things or disagree on their nature, data, observation, et cetera. Because we are not 100% certain of either- we are certain of composite elements of observation of these processes in certain circumstances. This is not the same as the truth of knowing the square root 168.

Nor do people have to give a flip about it all. Objective truth, by it's very definition, does not require anyone to believe in it. It is objectively true.

That's nice and all. Though irrelevant. Objective truth doesn't account for how people use or understand what is objectively true.

How we feel or what we do with object truth is 100% irrelevant in all circumstance to the objective truth.

Hmm. Here's a fun thought. 1+1 = 2. Objective truth or not?

[Doctor Amadeus]

This is all irrelevant though.

Objective truth is independent of how humanity operates, feels, votes, et cetera. Or it would not be objective.

No amount of feeling, emotion or opinion can change the atomic mass of chlorine. That's objective truth and science.

Evolution or Global Warming are not objectively true. These are not valid arguments for objective truth. People can choose to not believe these things or disagree on their nature, data, observation, et cetera. Because we are not 100% certain of either- we are certain of composite elements of observation of these processes in certain circumstances. This is not the same as the truth of knowing the square root 168.

Nor do people have to give a flip about it all. Objective truth, by it's very definition, does not require anyone to believe in it. It is objectively true.

That's nice and all. Though irrelevant. Objective truth doesn't account for how people use or understand what is objectively true.

How we feel or what we do with object truth is 100% irrelevant in all circumstance to the objective truth.

Well yeah, just gonna disagree then because Global Warming and Evolution are objective truths, they can be wrong, but there is a real reason why they are wrong or not, and it has to come from the same logical objective evidence that stands the test of the scientific process.

[Slant]

Well yeah, just gonna disagree then because Global Warming and Evolution are objective truths, they can be wrong, but there is a real reason why they are wrong or not, and it has to come from the same logical objective evidence that stands the test of the scientific process.

That test would take a couple of million years, mate. :P

[Fencers]

Hmm. Here's a fun thought. 1+1 = 2. Objective truth or not?

In the decimal system, yes.

Evolution as a thing altogether, is as much objective truth as anything else can be.

It's just something we are very rationally sure about- as you said, as close to 'true' as we get most of the time. However, people can and do challenge the constitute data of evolutionary life, introduce new ideas within it's framework and so on. Which is how science works, of course.

I am not going to validate the fantasies of superstition in relation to science and rational thought.

[Doctor Amadeus]

That test would take a couple of million years, mate. :P

I will send you a couple of tickets to the Creationism Museum. See who's laughing then.

[Slant]

In the decimal system, yes.

But maths is a human concept.

- - - Updated - - -

I will send you a couple of tickets to the Creationism Museum. See who's laughing then.

Nah, their thinking insults me.

[Hotmail]

Yeah but when Science meets human greed, stupidity and bias, it stops being objective knowledge and can become a tool that is manipulate and used to harm people. Just as important as it is to know science works, it is important to understand how or why.

Not a lot of people explain that well or only the parts they got from somewhere else, and arguments like global warming, and evolution those get tossed out the window, because someone think's they thought of something that 100s of scientist didn't because they don't understand it.

And if the inititial response to that is well SO WHAT, well "So What means" you have tons of functionally illiterate spouting off science they half understand and creating rifts that actually makes science more difficult to do.

People stop taking science seriously and the damage that can do will lead humanity right back to the dark ages.

I agree with this, we are still reeling from the "low fat, high carb panic" which was pretty much a result of coerced science.

[Sama-81]

It's just something we are very rationally sure about- as you said, as close to 'true' as we get most of the time. However, people can and do challenge the constitute data of evolutionary life, introduce new ideas within it's framework and so on. Which is how science works, of course.

You said that evolution isn't an objective truth, though. Even if we agree on the overall theory being open for amendments, and challenges in regards to the implications, et cetera and so forth - as a concept, evolution will still be a fact. In that role it is untouchable to the same degree as the mass of chlorine, and entirely outside of human subjectivity. We don't need to show that all life evolved, to prove that the concept indeed is a thing. Neither do we need to do anything but observe, and name what we see. I mean, if one simplifies things to the extreme, a tree is still objectively there and as real as it can be, even if we aren't 100% on the definition of one. Things don't get more objective because we can quantify them (their characteristics might, though).

[Charge me Doctor]

Why does it have to be objectively true?

<3 this response. Seriously, why knowledge should be gained objectively.

[Fencers]

But maths is a human concept.

Truth by convention is still truth. And can be objectively so- meaning it's just not influenced or relevant to your opinion about it. Even within systems such as math. In the decimal system, 2+2=4. That is an objective truth.

That's all objective truth (or fact) means.

You said that evolution isn't an objective truth, though.

As a whole, it is not. We just have a very good rational basis for evolution. Fact and truth are not necessary the same either from a logical point of view. We just have an expressive convention of truth and fact.

In the same manner proof and evidence are not same in science. Science is pretty careful about what is claims to be objectively true or an axiom. Objective truth is closer to the latter concept.

[May90]

I don't think knowledge can be obtained objectively, strictly speaking - but I do think it can be collected without bias due to personal perspective. It is called scientific method, and it can be followed honorably and honestly by any person.

Hmm. Here's a fun thought. 1+1 = 2. Objective truth or not?

It is. But it is not a knowledge of the world, it is a knowledge of a model created by humanity. Math in itself has nothing to do with the real world, it is merely an instrument helpful in its description. I don't think in the real world anything can be perfectly objective, since we never see the whole picture.

[Sama-81]

As a whole, it is not. We just have a very good rationale basis for evolution. Fact and truth are not necessary the same either for a logical point of view. We just have an expressive convention of truth and fact.

In the same manner proof and evidence are not same in science. Science is pretty careful about what is claims to be objectively true or an axiom. Objective truth is closer to the latter concept.

I particularly said as a concept though, and as such it is an objective fact that it exists, and that it is pretty much an unavoidable "built-in mechanism" in life as we know it. As a 'whole', I entirely agree with you that the situation is a bit different. In regards to proof/evidence, I've never even heard a scientist use the term "(scientific) proof", I would even claim that the usage of the term is likely an indication of science being spoken about in a non-scientific setting, for example popular media. In regards to truth, that is indeed not really even a thing in science, partly since there is no real point in using the term in the first place. My own point in regards to that is simply, that if some scientific facts with very, very solid evidence backing them up aren't 'objective truths', then such a thing doesn't exist in the first place, rendering the term moot.
One could of course take that stance, that such a thing, like true altruism, doesn't exist at all in the first place, if one so wishes.

[HumbleDuck]

Well, I mean, at some point you have to make assumptions on the physical world. First principles won't get you much further than being absolutely sure that in some way you do exist.

Beyond that, you have to assume a lot. Most of these assumptions are pretty harmless: the Universe exists, mathematical axioms etc the trouble lies in the bad assumptions such as what you're seeing is an accurate representation of what's going on. This has never been a formal assumption science takes, but it's something we all do naturally anyway.

With this assumption in place we tend to follow ideas that don't deviate too far from what we've already assumed to be true. Indeed, even in your brain there's a physical reaction that happens when you hear an idea that you don't like or that deviates too far from your previous assumptions. Your brain will literally try to block it out if it upsets you enough.

This issue is what I believe causes so much of the intellectual dishonesty in the media and online. So, in answer: perspective is very important in finding truth with any truth that has it's foundations in a poorly met assumption, e.g. what I can see is an accurate representation of what's happening.

This. Ones perspective will be the very foundation of his/her definition of truth.

[Slant]

Truth by convention is still truth. And can be objectively so- meaning it's just not influenced or relevant to your opinion about it. Even within systems such as math. In the decimal system, 2+2=4. That is an objective truth.

That's all objective truth (or fact) means.

So, truth is what we define it to be? That's hardly objective truth. I think your definition of truth is wonky. Maths is nothing but a human invention. There are no numbers in the world.

- - - Updated - - -

It is. But it is not a knowledge of the world, it is a knowledge of a model created by humanity. Math in itself has nothing to do with the real world, it is merely an instrument helpful in its description. I don't think in the real world anything can be perfectly objective, since we never see the whole picture.

I think you're closer to the goal than fencer is.

I think stuff in the world can absolutely be objectively true. But I also think we will never see the objective truth. We can get pretty darn close approximations of the truth, but absolute truth? Unattainable if you're using subjective concepts to explain it. Even maths is not good enough for that.

[Deleted]

So, truth is what we define it to be?

Well if you define something to be true it is hard to be not true...
math is the language of logic.