Evidence versus Proof

@fast,

Reonstructo wrote:

Also the objective camp seems to be a little slow in admitting that objectivity is a mental model projected on sense-data and consensus.

What makes you think that objectivity isn't what's true regardless of our mental models and consensus?

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;109032 wrote:

What makes you think that objectivity isn't what's true regardless of our mental models and consensus?

Perhaps he thinks that objectivity does not "work". But in fact it does. Objectively speaking, of course.

But I am not clear what it would mean to say that objectivity is true. Perhaps only that objectivity is the way to get to the truth?

@fast,

kennethamy wrote:

But I am not clear what it would mean to say that objectivity is true. Perhaps only that objectivity is the way to get to the truth?

Well, when we say true, we mean in accordance with reality. So, when we say objectivity is true, we are saying that what is objective is in accordance with reality, regardless of our beliefs.

What do you mean get to the truth with objectivity? Don't we get to the truth with subjectivity by perceiving those things which are objective?

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;109037 wrote:

Well, when we say true, we mean in accordance with reality. So, when we say objectivity is true, we are saying that what is objective is in accordance with reality, regardless of our beliefs.

What do you mean get to the truth with objectivity? Don't we get to the truth with subjectivity by perceiving those things which are objective?

Those who believed the Earth was flat were objective in arriving at that proposition. But they were wrong.

I mean that we are more likely to discover the truth if we do not let our prejudices, and assumptions get in the way, than if we do. The scientist uses objective methods (like double-blind studies) to determine the efficacy of a new drug. Double blind studies lessen the possibility of subjectivity creeping in and distorting the data and its interpretation.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;109011 wrote:

We know well enough that there is an objective reality. But we also know that this objective reality is founded upon pure subjectivity.

I find this, and some of your other statements, obscure.

What causes our sense-impressions? From where do they originate? Why do we have the particular sense-impressions we do, rather than other ones? Do they come from some source that corresponds in some way to our mental-models? Are our mental-models constrained by the nature of our sense-impressions, so that if the sense-impressions were different, the mental-models would also be different?

I think I understand part of what you are saying. Without consciousness, the world "might as well not be there"; it would be phenomenologically non-existent. But it seems to me that phenomenology is not the whole story, and that there must be some kind of existence outside consciousness to account for the specific sense-impressions we have.

@fast,

kennethamy wrote:

Those who believed the Earth was flat were objective in arriving at that proposition. But they were wrong.

But this does not mean that the objective things they viewed were wrong. It just means that the conclusion supported by the objective things they viewed was wrong. And, in this case, I believe it was because they needed more facts (objective things).

Quote:

I mean that we are more likely to discover the truth if we do not let our prejudices, and assumptions get in the way, than if we do. The scientist uses objective methods (like double-blind studies) to determine the efficacy of a new drug. Double blind studies lessen the possibility of subjectivity creeping in and distorting the data and its interpretation.

Oh, well, I agree with that.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;109040 wrote:

But this does not mean that the objective things they viewed were wrong. It just means that the conclusion supported by the objective things they viewed was wrong. And, in this case, I believe it was because they needed more facts (objective things).

Oh, well, I agree with that.

What were the objective things they viewed?

If you agree with that, then you agree that it is by objectivity that we are likely to discover the truth. I wonder, though, what it was you thought I was saying. The experiences themselves are, of course, subjective, since only the person who has the experiences has them. He is the subject who has the experiences. So our experiences are subjective in a trivial sense. But that does not mean that what the experiences are of, are subjective. If I interview someone for a job as ask whether he has had any experience with a new computer program used in the firm he is interviewing for, I am not asking him about subjective experiences. I am asking him whether he knows how to operate the new program. I don't care about his subjective experiences. I am asking him about something quite objective.

@fast,

kennethamy wrote:

What were the objective things they viewed?

Well, I don't know for sure, but one of the things I think would be the ground. They would view the ground, think it flat, and then extrapolate that to the entire planet.

But this is just a guess as to how they actually came to the conclusion the Earth was flat. Would you like me to actually do the research?

Quote:

If you agree with that, then you agree that it is by objectivity that we are likely to discover the truth. I wonder, though, what it was you thought I was saying. The experiences themselves are, of course, subjective, since only the person who has the experiences has them. He is the subject who has the experiences. So our experiences are subjective in a trivial sense. But that does not mean that what the experiences are of, are subjective. If I interview someone for a job as ask whether he has had any experience with a new computer program used in the firm he is interviewing for, I am not asking him about subjective experiences. I am asking him whether he knows how to operate the new program. I don't care about his subjective experiences. I am asking him about something quite objective.

But you think I disagree with any of this, or have you just decided to tell me? For the record, I don't disagree with any of this.

@Reconstructo,

[QUOTE=Reconstructo;108987]And the referent does not exist unless we are conscious of it. [/QUOTE]Well, as was said earlier, what you say is simply not true, but if I'm reading you correctly (which is doubtful at best), you think nothing exists in a world where there is no human consciousness.

It's almost as if you think the world fades into oblivion once we can no longer maintain a mental percept of it.

I haven't been keeping up with your posts. Do you by chance think everything is subjective where even what others think is objective is a complicated consequence of our subjective experiences? If so, we're in for a long road.

To the typical analytical mind, the Earth had to exist prior to human inhabitation upon it, but if you deny that the Earth was in existence prior to that, then what I need is further insight into how you reconcile what would typically be regarded as an obvious falsehood.

My guess is that you have a skewed view of what it means to say of something that it exists, but unless I'm mistaken, you're not going to accept the answer since it's apparent that you think there is no 'it' for the existing without human awareness.

Let me ask you this. Let's suppose only two people are left after a world-wide disaster, and let's suppose a year later one of them dies in the arms of the other and witnesses the decaying body. If the last living person dies, will it rot too? Or, do you think there is no truth without knowledge of the truth? I ask because I want to gain further insight into just how deeply entrenched you are with your beliefs.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;109051 wrote:

Well, I don't know for sure, but one of the things I think would be the ground. They would view the ground, think it flat, and then extrapolate that to the entire planet.

But this is just a guess as to how they actually came to the conclusion the Earth was flat. Would you like me to actually do the research?

But you think I disagree with any of this, or have you just decided to tell me? For the record, I don't disagree with any of this.

What was objective? That they thought the Earth was flat? That it looked flat? And what does it mean to say that it was objective? Not just it was true. "Objective" and "true" do not mean the same thing, do they?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;109053 wrote:

What was objective? That they thought the Earth was flat? That it looked flat? And what does it mean to say that it was objective? Not just it was true. "Objective" and "true" do not mean the same thing, do they?

This is what I thought it meant:

"In philosophy, an objective fact means a truth that remains true everywhere, independently of human thought or feelings."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;109037 wrote:

Well, when we say true, we mean in accordance with reality. So, when we say objectivity is true, we are saying that what is objective is in accordance with reality, regardless of our beliefs.

I think perhaps it's best if we say of propositions that they are true. I would not think that objectivity (that is, not objectivity itself) is something that is true. I might accept "objective truth" to describe certain true propositions.

Just sayin'

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;109055 wrote:

This is what I thought it meant:

"In philosophy, an objective fact means a truth that remains true everywhere, independently of human thought or feelings."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

Well, a fact is, of course, a truth. So what does "objective" add to it if "objective" means, "true"? Something like a true truth? I don't think that "objective" should qualify "truth", but should qualify "judgment". An objective judgment. That is, unprejudiced, and independent of what one believes. And in that way, mind-independent. So that the judgment is true or false independently of what is thought to be true or false. So, I could make an objective judgment that would turn out to be false. Although, as I said, I would expect it to be more likely that an objective judgment was true than false. I don't see anything contradictory about saying that I believe I was objective in voting the accused was guilty. But it turned out he was not guilty. Do you?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;109058 wrote:

Well, a fact is, of course, a truth. So what does "objective" add to it if "objective" means, "true"?

In the context of your question (what are evidence and proof), to be objective means to aquire knowledge in a specific way (using one's rational faculty-as opposed to guessing, praying real hard, going by whatever makes one angry or happy, etc.), following specific rules (the rules of logic).

kennethamy;109058 wrote:

So, I could make an objective judgment that would turn out to be false. Although, as I said, I would expect it to be more likely that an objective judgment was true than false. I don't see anything contradictory about saying that I believe I was objective in voting the accused was guilty.

Satisfying the condition "to not see anything contradictory" is not the equivalent of passing objective judgement.

Fully proving a conclusion means deriving it, step by step, from direct sensory evidence, making sure that each step is taken in accordance with the rules of logic.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;109058 wrote:

An objective judgment. That is, unprejudiced, and independent of what one believes. And in that way, mind-independent.

How can a judgment be "independent of what one believes"? Surely any judgment is based on what one believes to be true. And "mind-independent"? How is it possible to disregard one's own mind?

@Stansfield,

Stansfield;109065 wrote:

In the context of your question (what are evidence and proof), to be objective means to aquire knowledge in a specific way (using one's rational faculty-as opposed to guessing, praying real hard, going by whatever makes one angry or happy, etc.), following specific rules (the rules of logic).

Satisfying the condition "to not see anything contradictory" is not the equivalent of passing objective judgement.

Fully proving a conclusion means deriving it, step by step, from direct sensory evidence, making sure that each step is taken in accordance with the rules of logic.

As I said, it is judgments that are objective or not. And a judgment is objective when it is made as free of the judger's preconceptions and prejudices as possible. When it is impartial. An objective person is one who tries (and succeeds) to make objective judgments.

It depends on the subject. When a judge instructs the jury that if it is to find the defendant guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" he is hardly demanding what you claim a proof would be, since that would be impossible to provide. What you have in mind is a conclusion that can be had only in mathematics or formal logic, of in other formalized subjects(except for the sensory evidence that does not exist in those two subjects, of course). In other areas the kind of proof you demand is, of course, not available. For instance, when I prove that the word, "weird" is spelled just that way, I do it not by a formal proof like the one you describe, but by showing how the word is spelled in a good dictionary.

@ACB,

ACB;109067 wrote:

How can a judgment be "independent of what one believes"? Surely any judgment is based on what one believes to be true. And "mind-independent"? How is it possible to disregard one's own mind?

I may believe that the girl stole the merchandise, but my judgment will be unbiased and based on (and only on) the facts, and the facts are independent of whatever beliefs I may have.

@fast,

Did you just tune in? I've already mentioned Heidegger's and Hegel's thoughts on the subject.

Existence. The primary predicate.

Before you were born, there was no objective reality. Not for you. And not for the others. What there is is history books, old buildings, etc. From these you stitch together your mental-model of history. Science projects backward to the big bang, etc. But all of this only exist as present-tense imagination. Or for us, consciousness of the exposure to their ideas.

Nobody's saying there's not a world out there. But I am suggesting that no one has a direct connection to this world. That all knowledge of this world or thing-in-itself is partial. That formal-logic, however charming in its way, is childishly naive if applied to living human language.

That the idolatry of truth beyond the practical sort of justified belief smacks of superstition. And I like formal logic. Just as I like chess. But chess is not real war. And formal logic is not living human decision-making.

I would also find it boring to argue the other side, but I think I could do it better.

To deny that consciousness is the ground of your personal being is silly. Put a bullet thru your brain and see if the world is still there. I'll be waiting.

@fast,

fast;109070 wrote:

I may believe that the girl stole the merchandise, but my judgment will be unbiased and based on (and only on) the facts, and the facts are independent of whatever beliefs I may have.

But you can only base your judgment on what you believe are the facts. If you believe that the girl stole the merchandise, you believe it is a fact that she stole it. You cannot get outside your own mind.

@ACB,

ACB;109067 wrote:

How can a judgment be "independent of what one believes"? Surely any judgment is based on what one believes to be true. And "mind-independent"? How is it possible to disregard one's own mind?

"Mind-independent" does not mean "disregarding one's own mind". Why would you think that? "Mind-independent" means exactly what it says. Independent of mind. So that whether or not the Moon exists does not depend on what anyone believes (hopes, wishes, and so on). That there is a Moon does not depend on whether anyone believes there is a Moon. Don't you agree? That is obviously true, since the Moon existed long before people existed who could believe there was a Moon.

Philosophy Forum

Evidence versus Proof

Quick Links

My Account

able2know