I will present one objective truth…
a plant will use chlorophyll to trap photons and will
produce sugar and oxygen from carbon dioxide and water…
Is this truth…is this objective…
I think so with 99.9% certainty…
That 99.9% is good enough for me - better to pretty much know a vast number of things with a reasonable degree of certainty - then to waste the rest of your life blowing hot air about justified true belief, internalism, externalism, Descartes demon etc for the lord knows how long!
We must confess that we do not fully and finally know anything at all, but practically and provisionally know more than we ever can imagine
Vincent Colapietro
Tell me about that .1%, Turtle. Tell me about your doubts.
the objective truth would be based on human minds…
so the 0.1% would cover that messy stuff…and if things are working ok who the hell cares about the 0.1%…
Working? As in “clocks work”? The Roman Catholic church works too.
the objective truth would be based on human minds…
so the 0.1% would cover that messy stuff…and if things are working ok who the hell cares about the 0.1%…
Working? As in “clocks work”? The Roman Catholic church works too.
no no no----i am writing about objective truths about matter and energy and living organisms and spacetime.
and if the theories lead to things that work then ok…like our understanding of electricity…
whether the catholic church works is in the minds of those that believe that…it doesnt work for 99.9%.
If the Catholic Church didn’t work, the people who dislike it wouldn’t attack it. It’s an enemy to many people because it works.
anon you know very well what objective truth is—
maybe you could write what you think it is…
I think the greater problem is that she also knows what “it works” means.
But substantiated theories formed of perception alone do not make facts.
They are the very make of illusion.
And facts alone do not make Gods.
I actually don’t know what objective truth is. Seriously.
anon give an example of what you think-------------------
No. Gods alone, make facts.
jesus christ where is this thread going…come on, you guys know what objective truth is…you can prove it and it works…
and you can have any kind of god you want… saint can be god…anon you can be god…and i can make objective truths god
How fussily are we allowed/supposed to look at your description?
For example, the verb ‘use’ could be challenged.
Especially since what is being used is part of the plant.
Do I use my mitochondria? or my ATP?
Also: how complete does an objective truth have to be?
Can one challenge a truth not for being false, per se, but for being misleading, in context, given what is missing?
If ‘working’ is the criterion of an objective truth, have we given up on some kind of correspondence theory of knowledge? What if something is working for someone but we cannot determine, via science say, that their belief corresponds to,…cough, cough [apologies in advance for the word use] reality?
I reacted to seeing the phrase, which I have seen before of course, as being both seemingly redundant and then also useless.
What is a subjective truth?
Is it something that is only true for me (or someone else)?
Wouldn’t that be an objective truth with a localized range?
Or would it be a truth at all?
What does the word objective add to the word truth?
(I am echoing your ‘don’t know’, not directly asking you.)
I assume this thread came out of this…
How can limited beings every know their truths are objective?
so moreno do you believe the example i gave or not…
my latter issue, the one about incomplete in context and misleading applies. I would not call it false, per se, but I would not call it true. I am sure it can lead to certain kinds of repeated experiences - iow is useful. The materialist outlook, however, inherent in the language - iow the ‘reality’ called up by the terms - I think is false. So no.