But Reconstructo believes that intersubjectivty = objectivity. At least this is what I think he is insinuating. And this I think is not true. I think that what is objective is true regardless who believes it.

What about my example of the color red? If normal people under normal circumstances believe that an object is red, then isn't it red?

You're saying that in this case intersubjectivity = objectivity? Can something be objectively red, independent of our perceiving? That's a good question, I think. Color is one of those peculiar things, which is why I made that thread on it.

Colors seem to be quasi-objective. We accept that something is red if it appears red to the normal observer under normal conditions of observation. Something like this may be true about value properties too, like good. Of course, if our criterion for color turns out to be the wave length an object emits, that is something else again. Than any kind of subjectivity (including intersubjectivity) goes out the window.

Yes, and this is why I didn't directly answer your question. I am still researching color myself. (I have been since I made that thread).

This is an interesting issue. Should science (in this case) supersede how we ordinarily think and talk about this matter?

We are aware of color disorders, and we know that people with color disorders experience color in ways a person that experiences color normally would not. Despite this, we would still say the coat is red, if everyone agreed the coat was red under normal conditions, even if that one person (out of hundreds of thousands) saw it as green. So, no, I don't think what is discovered by science supersedes how we ordinarily think about color. It certainly gives us something to think about, though.

I suppose that science has to take physiology into consideration, and not simply wave length.

And what makes you think it doesnt?

Science is what found out that different mediums promote different perceptions.

I suppose that science has to take physiology into consideration, and not simply wave length.

So I ask you: When has science not taken physiology into consideration?

If you dont agree with what you said then why say it in the first place?

When did he say that there was a time when science did not take physiology into consideration? He just said he supposes they do have take physiology into consideration. Not every supposition has a hidden implication.

And thats the point.

WHY SAY IT AT ALL IF ITS A USELESS STATEMENT THAT HE DOESNT ACTUALLY BELIEVE?

I suppose that science has to take physiology into consideration, and not simply wave length

What is a useless statement he doesn't actually believe? It makes more sense that he does believe it, since he supposes it. Usually when I say, "I suppose", I am saying I believe or think said thing.

To go back for a moment, this is what he said:



What about it is useless? Which part do you think he doesn't believe, and why?

I just asked him and he said he doesnt believe the implication.

And the implication is that at one point science didnt take physiology into consideration.

How can you not see how useless it is?

It's like going up to Peyton Manning and saying, "you have to take the other team into consideration..." The implication is that Manning doesnt take the other team into consideration, but if there isnt an implication -as you two seem to think- then tell me how is it a meaningful statement and not completely obvious?

What is useless is your misunderstanding of what he wrote.

It's like going up to Peyton Manning and saying, "you have to take the other team into consideration..." The implication is that Manning doesnt take the other team into consideration, but if there isnt an implication -as you two seem to think- then tell me how is it a meaningful statement and not completely obvious?

What is useless is your misunderstanding of what he wrote.

It's like going up to Peyton Manning and saying, "you have to take the other team into consideration..." The implication is that Manning doesnt take the other team into consideration, but if there isnt an implication -as you two seem to think- then tell me how is it a meaningful statement and not completely obvious?