But, if you happen only to mean that although whether the fire truck is red is not a matter of opinion...

Isn't that the topic of Searle's The Construction of Social Reality? (Don't ask me, I haven't read it yet, but it looks like it.)

Up and down are opposing, but they are not values. Wide and narrow are opposing, but they are not values. Rude and polite are both, opposing and are values. But the values they have has nothing whatever to do with their opposition to each other. You are confusing opposition with value. (Aside from having begged the question. See my earlier post).

If I may interject, I think I have a scenario that may clear up this whole fire truck business.

Bill has developed a condition that prevents him from seeing the color red. He used to know what was red and what was blue, but now every time he sees something that we perceive as red, he sees the color blue. He and I are looking at the fire truck in question. Bill says,
"Huh. A blue firetruck. That's weird, isn't it?"
Confused, I turn to Bill and say,
"What are you talking about man, that firetruck is red, like all firetrucks!"
"Dude, I know what I see, that truck is blue!"
"No it's not!"
"yes it is!"

And so on and so forth. Now, the fire truck wasn't changing colors for us, it stayed the same color, let's call it the "true color". The problem is we have different perceptions of the "true color", making our perceived truths (knowledge) different. How would we go about determining witch of us was perceiving the "true color", since we both "know" what color the truck is?

Perceived truths are not knowledge.

We go about determining which of us is seeing the true color in the usual way. By determining whether the person is a normal observer observing under normal conditions of observation. That does not apply only to color. If some says that people have suddenly shrunk in size, but is observing those people from a very high building, we judge that observing people from a great height is not an ideal way of telling what their true size is.

So now objective morality is determined solely by the whims of at least 51% of the populace?

Where on earth did you get such an idea. I didn't say such a foolish thing, and no one else did, so far as I can tell.

Please refer to the definitions I posted.
I would disagree with that stance. "Shoving" has no inherent value statement married to it. According to the definitions, being rude essentially boils down to behaving in a way that society deems inappropriate (values statement). Shoving is just applying force to a person (value free).

Again, this analogy doesn't apply. Defining medicine as "something that heals sickness" is a value-free definition, since it isn't implied that healing sickness is "good" or "bad". If the definition of medicine was "the best stuff because it makes you better" than that would be analogous.

I think you are misunderstanding. I'm saying that if society had no values against which to measure behavior, rude would become impossible to gauge, since there would be no fixed morality against which to measure any action. Therefore, without fixed aesthetic and moral values, the word rude would be meaningless.

First, I'd like to congratulate you on solving the whole nature-nurture (chicken-egg) problem. And second, who determines the persons rudeness? The others around said acting individual? God? The Sheriff? Why are their opinions on rudeness more valid that the acting party?

And that's exactly my point. The definition of rude is subjective, based upon preferences and values.

Majority opinion determines what is normal, therefore who is qualified to determine fact. Would that be a fair assessment of your position?



.

Not at all. My view is that what is normal determines what is majority opinion. You have it exactly backwards. It is because fire engines appear red that people believe that fire engines are red. Not the other way round.

No, like I said, despite having quoted definitions you are confused about it. You have the definition correct but assume something else. You say right here that rude is behaving in a way that people deem inappropriate, but then you deny that behaving in a way that people deem inappropriate is rude! What you are trying to say is something about it there being no objective reason for it being rude, in the same way that there is no objective reason for one side of the road to be tho common one to ride on.

Where is this alien society located?

Refer to your definition. But at least you are clear that you are arguing about whether something that is rude should be rude. That is a much more fruitful discussion.

You don't mean this. My preferences and values cannot make the definition of rude equal to "a small green teapot" can they?

You mean that whether someone thinks an action is rude is based on preferences and values. But everything that someone thinks of as rude based on those values is within the framework of the common definition of rude.

Twirlip;169982 wrote:

Isn't that the topic of Searle's The Construction of Social Reality? (Don't ask me, I haven't read it yet, but it looks like it.)

I haven't heard of it. Sounds interesting, though.

How do you know that firetrucks appear red to everyone? Even if you did, how is this any different from claiming a majority determines reality? This is a circular argument.

.

Objective, by definition, is that which is true mind-independently. Maybe you meant intersubjective.

Everyone says that fire trucks are red, that's how I know they are red. (You think they are lying?) That fire trucks are red is not determined by any majority, since the majority call fire trucks red because fire trucks are red. I already explained to you how you have the whole thing backwards. You must be confusing two different things:

1. What it is that justifies my belief that fire truck are red. Answer. Everyone says they are red.
2. What causes (determines) fire trucks to be red. Answer. They are painted red.

See the difference? One is about justification of my belief. The other is about the cause of the fire trucks' color.
You are confusing them.

I agree with this. And I swear I'm not trying to be difficult. For me this is a basic logical issue, and an interesting one. How do we as humans immersed in our common language(s) decide what notion to have of this mind-independent reality? Because all experience is associated with the concept mind, mind-independent reality can only be an abstraction --and of course it is a crucial and respectable abstraction. Still, no one ever directly experiences mind-independent reality (because it's mind-independent). We speculate upon it and make important decisions, like the design of space shuttles, according to these speculations. Some ideas have been so successful for us that they are accepted as true.
We have to give reasons for our descriptions of mind-independent reality, right? So we are giving reasons to other humans. We debate about the nature of this mind-independent reality. Scientists disagree at times on mind-independent reality but generally agree that experiments must be repeatable. And this is crucial to the scientific method, no? In the end, individual humans have to verify with their personal experience, which is sensual even if only to the degree of seeing chalk on a blackboard. And often they are reading computer screens, I'm sure.

In any case, a psychotic is described as a psychotic because others are not persuaded of his assertions concerning mind-independent reality. And if a scientist achieves cold fusion when alone and the same procedure fails to offer similar results to others, his experience is not integrated into the socially accepted system of concepts that represents this mind-independent reality for us.

So I'm saying that objectivity must, logically, be inter-subjectivity -- the result of society and language use.

No, you are in circular argument denial. There is no difference, because fundamentally, you are still taking a leap of faith in deciding that you have knowledge of objective reality, which you don't unless you are a god.

Fire trucks are red because I and "everyone" (how you could possibly know this is beyond me) perceive them that way, because they are red, because I and "everyone" (how you could possibly know this is beyond me) perceive them that way.

Do you understand why I would consider your logic as circular? If not, please sum up your firetruck position as a proposition or hypothesis, because I am not understanding it as linear one bit.

---------- Post added 05-28-2010 at 03:18 PM ----------



.

Is bold the new CAPS?

Excellent post. Great summation of what I've been trying to get across. I think differentiating between objective and intersubjective is the crux of this thread. Even the most widely held intersubjective notion is still not objective, therefore is not truth, nor fact (in the strictest sense of the words).

It's logically weak,.

Can you support that assertion? Or do you even care to? I suppose the answer to both questions is, no.

I think that the belief in true objectivity has so little practical backblow that no one bothers to really look at it. It's logically weak, but in a practical sense quite functional.