Really? So science cannot test its predictions? It cannot say something like “tomorrow will rain” and then test that claim by observing whether it rains or not the following day? It appears to me that science can both prove and disprove its predictions. What science cannot prove, and can only disprove, is an infinite series of predictions. This is because you can only prove what is finite. In order to prove an infinite series of predictions you need to run an infinite number of tests which means these tests can never be completed. And this does not apply only to science. It applies to any kind of study in general. In other words, nothing can prove an infinite series of predictions.
We’re not talking about individual human beings deciding what is real because then the schizophrenic says that his hallucinations are real.
What is objectively real for everybody?
A “branch of knowledge” can potentially makes up some nonsense and claim that it is ‘real’ or a true interpretation of reality. Intelligence allows you to do that more effectively than stupidity or ignorance. Intelligence can weave together a plausible explanation which is hard to dispute.
It would be nice if real philosophy came with a convenient label “Philosophy” attached and the nonsense philosophy came with the label “Pseudo-philosophy”. That would make life so much simpler.
That’s exactly what we’re doing. It’s only sentient beings who have the ability to decide what is real and what is not. Noone and nothing else.
I’ve notived that most people find it difficult to OWN their opinions. They cannot simply say “this is just my opinion”. They have to delude themselves into thinking it’s something more than that.
They interpret the statement “truth is independent from what we think” too literally.
Naturally, since they are parrots.
Schizophrenics have their opinion(s).
I have my mine.
Schizophrenics think their hallucinations are real.
I think they are not.
Schizophrenics think I am crazy.
I think that schizophrenics are crazy.
And so on.
That’s a meaningless question.
What does it mean for something to be “objectively real for everybody”?
I am sure you can’t answer that.
There is only consensus between people.
Or more precisely, only similarities between people.
Yes. What I meant by intelligence is intelligence proper.
No. What that means, and by that I mean that our opinions are merely our opinions, is that there is no guarantee that there is a common ground between you and every other person that you encounter.
That does not mean – it does not imply – that there is no common ground between you and every other person.
In other words, if people don’t think the way you do, and by think I mean make assumptions regarding the unknown, and if they are unwilling to change how they think, then it is impossible to make any kind of agreement with them.
You can speak meaningfully only about that which is within your experience.
Speaking about things that are outside of your experience is meaningless.
I am still waiting for you to explain to me what it means for something to be “objectively true for everyone”.
I wish you a lot of luck with that.
I don’t think that religious people, pseudo-scientists and pseudo-philosophers are truly intelligent. They aren’t exactly without intelligence but what they have is not real intelligence. It’s a degenerate form. These people think in a very backward manner. They start with a conclusion (something they consider to be unquestionable) and then they seek evidence that supports it. That’s not how people who are genuinely intelligent think.
I am still waiting for you to explain to me what it means for something to be “objectively true for everyone”.
I am afraid you will do the exact same thing James would do i.e. you would give me a sequence of words that you feel mean something but that in reality mean nothing.
If your words have no reference to something you have previously experienced then they are only that – words – which means they are empty, meaningless.
I ignored your words because I don’t think they are advancing the discussion.
This is what you said:
I don’t even understand what this means. What experience they have in common? of being alive? So what exactly are you saying? that everyone is alive and so that everyone has the experience of being alive? How is that advancing this discussion? It appears to be a tautology. I don’t deny that people have things in common. I don’t deny that one of these things they have in common is the experience of being alive.
So? How does that advance this discussion? How does that deny my statement that there are only opinions?
Then you will immediately get the old blame: “You are a subjectivist”. Philosophers should not be either subjectivists or objectivists, but should try to overcome the subject/object problem.
Science does not reference proof as that is the remit of systems of logic like mathematics and syllogisms which are
primarily deductive disciplines. Whereas evidence is the remit of science which is primarily an inductive discipline
Science has absolutely nothing to say about reality because it does not and cannot study reality. What it studies are observable
phenomena and specifically their properties. Whether such phenomena constitute reality is not a question science can answer
It is a meaningless question because if something is objectively real or true then it is completely irrelevant as to how popular it is
Something can be objectively true and be accepted by no one and equally something can be objectively false and be accepted by
everyone. All that matters is if something can be demonstrated to be objectively true. How popular it is is of no importance at all
All it takes to falsify this statement is just one counter example and here it is
It is objectively true that the Earth is a sphere. Triangulation proved this over four centuries ago and photographs from space are also evidence of this
There are those however who think that it is flat. Not everyone therefore thinks it is objectively true that is a sphere. And by your reasoning that then
cannot be objectively true. Yet it is. So something can be objectively true without it being so for everyone
What this seems to be suggesting is that whatever a person thinks is automatically true. (and also what he thinks is false is automatically false)
This does not seem to be a valid idea.
If I think that I can fly by flapping my arms then it’s true that I can.
However, the objective truth which comes from scientific calculations and observations says that a person cannot fly by flapping his arms. (the test of the truth of my statement)
The other objective truth is that I actually think that I can fly by flapping my arms. (a statement on whether I hold the belief or not). If I’m BSing then the objective truth is that I don’t believe the claim I made.
It is a meaningless question because “objectively true” is a meaningless expression.
It is people who decide what is true and what is not true. And they do so by using certain methodology (i.e. by following certain rules, if they are following any rules.)
In other words, what there is is what people THINK is true/real and WHY they think it is true/real.
Truth/reality is not something that is BEYOND what people think is true/real.
Whatever is beyond what people THINK is quite simply UNTHINKABLE and therefore MEANINGLESS.
What one thinks is true is NO MORE than what one thinks is true.
In other words, what one thinks is true IS NOT what is “objectively true” or “true independently from what one thinks is true”.
It cannot be because these expressions, taken literally, are meaningless.
On the other hand, method of induction allows us to discriminate between better and worse opinions.
The words ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ identify what thoughts are based on. Subjective thoughts are based on feelings while objective thoughts are based on observations. Subjective thoughts can’t be verified or falsified by others - a person ‘owns’ them completely. Objective thoughts are open to scrutiny. Your thoughts about the shape of the world can be right or wrong. Your thoughts about whether or not you like chocolate ice cream can’t be wrong. There is no external reference for your ice cream likes, no way to challenge your statements about it.
The words “objective” and “subjective” have several different meanings and one of them is the one that you provided.
Epistemological objectivity and subjectivity refer to two different modes, ways or patterns of forming assumptions regarding the unknown (e.g. expectations/predictions.)
Subjectivity means expecting/predicting what you want (or don’t want) to happen.
In general, it means anything other than what objectivity means.
Objectivity means expecting/predicting the smallest deviation from what was experienced in the past.
I don’t deny these. But I deny that these are anything more than PATTERNS OF REASONING.
What I deny is ontological definitions of objectivity and subjectivity.