Einstein on truth is objective

Page 3 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3

View previous topic View next topic Go down

default Re: Einstein on truth is objective

Post by rombomb on Thu Jan 24, 2013 9:07 pm

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:It's an objective fact that you made that comment and think that (in the hypothetical).

It's also an objective fact that this comment can express some ideas you have, and that you really have those ideas.

Yes. It's an objective fact that I held an opinion, and that I can express these opinions truthfully. The opinion itself is not in any way, shape or form objective.
Right, but... *that you have that opinion* is an objective fact.

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:Notice that the versions that I stated, are either objective fact or objective falsehood, and none are subjective truths. I'll list them again with slight variation to mimic your version:

- "Chocolate ice cream is the best-tasting ice cream." This is an objective falsehood because it implies that it applies to all people

It depends on the context of the statement. If the person was implying objectively, they made a logical error attempting to ascribe subjective coloration to the objective domain.
Right, so thats an objective falsehood. What is the other way they could imply it? Subjectively? But how? Do you mean like this?

- "Chocolate ice cream is *my* favorite ice cream." If so, this is not a subjective truth, its an objective truth. Do you agree?

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:and of course there is at least one person that likes vanilla over chocolate thus successfully criticizing the idea, thereby rendering it false.

Nobody else in the entire universe, or as Tom Campbell would call it, the 'supersystem', would need to agree for it to be a subjective truth — every subjective domain is a subsystem residing in discrete bubbles within the overarching objective system, heterogeneously.
But you read it deliberately wrong. You said that some people might imply objectively, but its a mistake to do that. Do you agree?

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:
The criticism I used above applies to your idea that you've labeled as a "subjective truth". Do you agree? If not, can you explain why its anything other than an objective falsehood?

Also, can you point out another idea which you consider to be a subjective truth

"Chocolate ice cream is the best" is a value judgment.
When someone says that, and if they mean it for just themselves, then what they really mean is: "Chocolate ice cream is my favorite." And I've explained that this is an objective fact, not a "subjective fact". If you disagree, can you explain how I'm wrong? And can you show me an idea that is a subjective fact?

Dreamspace wrote:
Such values cannot be objective, only collectively held by several independent subjective subsystems. Subjective truths need only be true in the continuity of said subsystems; they may conflict with every other subsystem, or may be coherent. If they are all coherent, then it is a collectivized subjective truth.

What about this sort of value judgement?

- "Solving one's hurt-causing problems is good." Is this a value judgement? Is this a subjective fact?

rombomb

Posts : 278
Join date : 2011-11-29
Location : USA

View user profile http://ramirustom.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

default Re: Einstein on truth is objective

Post by Dreamspace on Thu Jan 24, 2013 9:26 pm

rombomb wrote:Right, so thats an objective falsehood. What is the other way they could imply it? Subjectively? But how? Do you mean like this?

- "Chocolate ice cream is *my* favorite ice cream." If so, this is not a subjective truth, its an objective truth. Do you agree?

It is objectively true that chocolate ice cream is your favorite — that is an objective truth. But nothing can be objective good or bad, so the ice cream is neither objectively good nor bar. However, things may be subjectively good or bad. It is subjective truth that chocolate ice cream is the best within the confines of that individual's subjective subsystem.

rombomb wrote:and of course there is at least one person that likes vanilla over chocolate thus successfully criticizing the idea, thereby rendering it false.

That renders it not a collective truth. You are using inductive logic when you try to determine objective truth through statistical analysis rather than deduction. Induction will lead to the fallacy of good–bad polarity having an objective basis. The hegemony of the collective only does a headcount of the assenting/dissenting subjective subsystems.

rombomb wrote:But you read it deliberately wrong. You said that some people might imply objectively, but its a mistake to do that. Do you agree?

Good–bad value judgments have no objective basis and are false in all instances. It's redundant to point out an opinion is subjective.

rombomb wrote:When someone says that, and if they mean it for just themselves, then what they really mean is: "Chocolate ice cream is my favorite." And I've explained that this is an objective fact, not a "subjective fact". If you disagree, can you explain how I'm wrong? And can you show me an idea that is a subjective fact?

The fact that you have opinions is fact. The opinions themselves are not fact. Anything can be subjective fact; it is arbitrary. Objective fact, however, is bound by the rules of external reality.

Dreamspace wrote:What about this sort of value judgement?

- "Solving one's hurt-causing problems is good." Is this a value judgement? Is this a subjective fact

It is subjective fact. A value judgment was made the second you thought in terms of 'good' or 'bad'.

All of these points were covered with my original post this morning.
avatar
Dreamspace

Posts : 162
Join date : 2012-09-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: Einstein on truth is objective

Post by rombomb on Thu Jan 24, 2013 9:50 pm

Dreamspace wrote:Good–bad value judgments have no objective basis and are false in all instances.
But good and bad are ideas used in morality. So, I think your idea implies that there is no morality -- meaning that morality is not objective and its only subjective. Is that what you mean? I disagree because...

I think this is an objective fact in the field of morality. "Ordering (aka causing) the murder of 6 million people is bad." Do you agree? If not, then you're saying that Hitler's actions are not objectively bad.

Dreamspace wrote:
The fact that you have opinions is fact. The opinions themselves are not fact. Anything can be subjective fact; it is arbitrary. Objective fact, however, is bound by the rules of external reality.

rombomb wrote:What about this sort of value judgement?

- "Solving one's hurt-causing problems is good." Is this a value judgement? Is this a subjective fact

It is subjective fact. A value judgment was made the second you thought in terms of 'good' or 'bad'.

What about this idea?

- "Solving one's hurt-causing problems is good, and this is true for everybody". Is this a value judgement? Is this a subjective fact? Is this is an objective fact?

rombomb

Posts : 278
Join date : 2011-11-29
Location : USA

View user profile http://ramirustom.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

default Re: Einstein on truth is objective

Post by Dreamspace on Thu Jan 24, 2013 10:00 pm

rombomb wrote:But good and bad are ideas used in morality. So, I think your idea implies that there is no morality -- meaning that morality is not objective and its only subjective. Is that what you mean? I disagree because...

I think this is an objective fact in the field of morality. "Ordering (aka causing) the murder of 6 million people is bad." Do you agree? If not, then you're saying that Hitler's actions are not objectively bad.

Hitler's actions are not objectively bad. They are subjectively bad. This is only a dilemma if you do not weight the subjective on par with the objective and try to fold aspects of the human elements of life into the scientific.

The original deontological system, which purports morality to be objective, depends upon an infallible moral arbiter to decide black-and-white rules. The other method is logical induction to derive an 'objective' system from popular consensus.

rombomb wrote:What about this idea?

- "Solving one's hurt-causing problems is good, and this is true for everybody". Is this a value judgement? Is this a subjective fact? Is this is an objective fact?

Objectivity has nothing to say about good or bad. It is a subjective truth which a large majority of the collective would agree with.
avatar
Dreamspace

Posts : 162
Join date : 2012-09-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: Einstein on truth is objective

Post by rombomb on Thu Jan 24, 2013 10:45 pm

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:But good and bad are ideas used in morality. So, I think your idea implies that there is no morality -- meaning that morality is not objective and its only subjective. Is that what you mean? I disagree because...

I think this is an objective fact in the field of morality. "Ordering (aka causing) the murder of 6 million people is bad." Do you agree? If not, then you're saying that Hitler's actions are not objectively bad.

Hitler's actions are not objectively bad. They are subjectively bad. This is only a dilemma if you do not weight the subjective on par with the objective and try to fold aspects of the human elements of life into the scientific.
Are you saying that Hitler's ideas/actions are not evil? If you don't mean that, then I'm confused.

Dreamspace wrote:
The original deontological system, which purports morality to be objective, depends upon an infallible moral arbiter to decide black-and-white rules.
Do you agree that these are true?

- Murder is evil.

- Theft is evil.

Dreamspace wrote:
The other method is logical induction to derive an 'objective' system from popular consensus.
Which doesn't work because truth cannot be determined by popularity contests.

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:What about this idea?

- "Solving one's hurt-causing problems is good, and this is true for everybody". Is this a value judgement? Is this a subjective fact? Is this is an objective fact?

Objectivity has nothing to say about good or bad. It is a subjective truth which a large majority of the collective would agree with.
So, if someone said: "Its bad for me to solve my hurt-causing problems." Is he wrong?

rombomb

Posts : 278
Join date : 2011-11-29
Location : USA

View user profile http://ramirustom.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

default Re: Einstein on truth is objective

Post by Dreamspace on Thu Jan 24, 2013 10:56 pm

rombomb wrote:Are you saying that Hitler's ideas/actions are not evil? If you don't mean that, then I'm confused.

In my opinion, and in the opinion of most barring neo-Nazis, Hitler was evil. Objectivity has no opinions on good and evil.

rombomb wrote:Do you agree that these are true?

- Murder is evil.

- Theft is evil.

In my opinion and most people's opinions, yes. Objectively, they are neither good nor evil. There can only be an objective metric for what constitutes good or evil which operates upon subjective axiomatic values. That is to say, you can modulate objectivity using a subjective kernel — but at its core, it will still be subjective.

rombomb wrote:Which doesn't work because truth cannot be determined by popularity contests.

Which is precisely why the belief in objective morality is absurd.

rombomb wrote:So, if someone said: "Its bad for me to solve my hurt-causing problems." Is he wrong?

It is not objective correct or incorrect. Objectivity can only say what is right or wrong in the sense of correct of incorrect, is or isn't. It cannot paint subjective hues on things and decide if they are good or bad — only subjective opinion does this.
avatar
Dreamspace

Posts : 162
Join date : 2012-09-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: Einstein on truth is objective

Post by rombomb on Thu Jan 24, 2013 11:52 pm

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:Are you saying that Hitler's ideas/actions are not evil? If you don't mean that, then I'm confused.

In my opinion, and in the opinion of most barring neo-Nazis, Hitler was evil. Objectivity has no opinions on good and evil.

rombomb wrote:Do you agree that these are true?

- Murder is evil.

- Theft is evil.

In my opinion and most people's opinions, yes. Objectively, they are neither good nor evil. There can only be an objective metric for what constitutes good or evil which operates upon subjective axiomatic values. That is to say, you can modulate objectivity using a subjective kernel — but at its core, it will still be subjective.

rombomb wrote:Which doesn't work because truth cannot be determined by popularity contests.

Which is precisely why the belief in objective morality is absurd.
Why is it absurd? And why precisely? Why do you think that objective morality presupposes that it be determined by popularity contests? The truth of scientific theories is not determined by popularity contests, so why should objective morality be determined that way?

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:So, if someone said: "Its bad for me to solve my hurt-causing problems." Is he wrong?

It is not objective correct or incorrect. Objectivity can only say what is right or wrong in the sense of correct of incorrect, is or isn't. It cannot paint subjective hues on things and decide if they are good or bad — only subjective opinion does this.

At this point, I think I've understood your position.

So lets talk about all the people with anger problems. A person's anger often leads to hurting people, himself and others. If a person solves one of his problems, one that is causing anger, a consequence of that is that less hurt comes to himself and others.

Hurt is psychological suffering, which is bad. Less hurt means less suffering, which is good.

This holds true for everybody -- that solving one's hurt-causing problems causes less hurt -- and that that is good, for everybody.

Do you agree? If you do, then I'd like to talk about this sort of situation...

Say somebody said: "I like (psychologically) hurting myself -- its good."

I agree with you that that is a value judgement. And I agree that he values "(psychologically) hurting himself." But I believe that this value-judgement is bad, since it contradicts the idea that:

Solving one's hurt-causing problems is good, and this is true for everybody.

rombomb

Posts : 278
Join date : 2011-11-29
Location : USA

View user profile http://ramirustom.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

default Re: Einstein on truth is objective

Post by Dreamspace on Fri Jan 25, 2013 12:12 am

rombomb wrote:Why is it absurd? And why precisely? Why do you think that objective morality presupposes that it be determined by popularity contests?

Because without some transcendental arbiter you're left with consensus.

rombomb wrote:The truth of scientific theories is not determined by popularity contests, so why should objective morality be determined that way?

The truth of scientific theories is not determined by popularity contests, because these are objective truths. Chocolate ice cream being the best will never be objective truth. The closest you could get to objective is reaching a consensus where several opinions align.


rombomb wrote:At this point, I think I've understood your position.

So lets talk about all the people with anger problems. A person's anger often leads to hurting people, himself and others. If a person solves one of his problems, one that is causing anger, a consequence of that is that less hurt comes to himself and others.

Hurt is psychological suffering, which is bad. Less hurt means less suffering, which is good.

Psychological suffering is not objectively bad. But you will easily reach a subjective consensus about it being bad.

rombomb wrote:This holds true for everybody -- that solving one's hurt-causing problems causes less hurt -- and that that is good, for everybody.

Solving one's "hurt-causing problems" is subjectively good and few humans will argue this. It is not objectively good.

rombomb wrote:Say somebody said: "I like (psychologically) hurting myself -- its good."

I agree with you that that is a value judgement. And I agree that he values "(psychologically) hurting himself." But I believe that this value-judgement is bad, since it contradicts the idea that:

Solving one's hurt-causing problems is good, and this is true for everybody.

It contradicts a subjective scheme which may be internally logically consistent, but built around a subjective axiom. He can hold that subjective truth that hurting himself is good. Few will agree with him.
avatar
Dreamspace

Posts : 162
Join date : 2012-09-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: Einstein on truth is objective

Post by rombomb on Fri Jan 25, 2013 12:44 am

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:Why is it absurd? And why precisely? Why do you think that objective morality presupposes that it be determined by popularity contests?

Because without some transcendental arbiter you're left with consensus.
Whats wrong with guesses and criticism?

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:The truth of scientific theories is not determined by popularity contests, so why should objective morality be determined that way?

The truth of scientific theories is not determined by popularity contests, because these are objective truths. Chocolate ice cream being the best will never be objective truth.
But thats because its objectively false. Why? Because of a criticism that successfully refutes it, which is that some people's favorite ice cream is vanilla.

Dreamspace wrote:
The closest you could get to objective is reaching a consensus where several opinions align.
I don't need other people to tell me that *Chocolate ice cream is everybody's favorite ice cream* is objectively false to (conjecturally) know that its objectively false. Why? Because I have an unrefuted criticism of it.

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:At this point, I think I've understood your position.

So lets talk about all the people with anger problems. A person's anger often leads to hurting people, himself and others. If a person solves one of his problems, one that is causing anger, a consequence of that is that less hurt comes to himself and others.

Hurt is psychological suffering, which is bad. Less hurt means less suffering, which is good.

Psychological suffering is not objectively bad. But you will easily reach a subjective consensus about it being bad.
If you combine a justificationist epistemology with an objective morality, then you get someone who waits until other people reach a consensus before he starts solving his hurt-causing problems. This would be foolish.

Instead, combine a critical rationalist epistemology, which already includes a belief in objective truth in all fields of knowledge rather than just scientific knowledge, then you get someone who starts solving his problems right away. Of course this requires that he has already learned that its good to solve one's hurt-causing problems.

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:This holds true for everybody -- that solving one's hurt-causing problems causes less hurt -- and that that is good, for everybody.

Solving one's "hurt-causing problems" is subjectively good and few humans will argue this. It is not objectively good.

rombomb wrote:Say somebody said: "I like (psychologically) hurting myself -- its good."

I agree with you that that is a value judgement. And I agree that he values "(psychologically) hurting himself." But I believe that this value-judgement is bad, since it contradicts the idea that:

Solving one's hurt-causing problems is good, and this is true for everybody.

It contradicts a subjective scheme which may be internally logically consistent, but built around a subjective axiom. He can hold that subjective truth that hurting himself is good. Few will agree with him.

Do you agree that its a mistake for this person to "hold the subjective truth that hurting himself is good," since holding that believes causes hurt on himself?

rombomb

Posts : 278
Join date : 2011-11-29
Location : USA

View user profile http://ramirustom.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

default Re: Einstein on truth is objective

Post by Dreamspace on Fri Jan 25, 2013 1:11 am

rombomb wrote:Whats wrong with guesses and criticism?

Moral truths are opinions. You can't criticize opinions objectively. You cannot use deductive logic to deduce moral truth. You either take Kant's route or you go with consensus.

rombomb wrote:But thats because its objectively false. Why? Because of a criticism that successfully refutes it, which is that some people's favorite ice cream is vanilla.

It does not refute it. This is a misapplication of Popperian logic. Even if everybody on the planet agreed that chocolate was the best, that would not make it objective. Even if nobody would or could ever say anything other than chocolate, it would still be a collective subjective truth. You are making a fundamental logical error by stating objectivity can have anything to say about what is good or bad.

rombomb wrote:I don't need other people to tell me that *Chocolate ice cream is everybody's favorite ice cream* is objectively false to (conjecturally) know that its objectively false. Why? Because I have an unrefuted criticism of it.

If that is "unrefuted criticism", then so is saying that in my opinion the speed of light is 50 miles per second and is not a constant, varying across all frames of reference. Except in this instance you can use empirical proof to refute me, so that's a bad example. Somebody else's contradictory opinion is not empirical or objective fact refuting the subjective truth that chocolate ice cream is the best. Popper wouldn't consider somebody's opinions a refutation, and your attempt to dress opinions up as objective fact by remarking how it's objective fact that they hold them is syllogistic fallacy.

rombomb wrote:If you combine a justificationist epistemology with an objective morality, then you get someone who waits until other people reach a consensus before he starts solving his hurt-causing problems. This would be foolish.

Induction cannot determine moral values objectively, only make statistical analyses on subjective beliefs.

But an individual is typically culturally inculcated with certain collective value heuristics by which to operate in any given moral exigency.

rombomb wrote:Instead, combine a critical rationalist epistemology, which already includes a belief in objective truth in all fields of knowledge rather than just scientific knowledge, then you get someone who starts solving his problems right away. Of course this requires that he has already learned that its good to solve one's hurt-causing problems.

You cannot create objective knowledge that way. This is a misapplication of deductive reason. You can't treat opinions as facts.

rombomb wrote:Do you agree that its a mistake for this person to "hold the subjective truth that hurting himself is good," since holding that believes causes hurt on himself?

It is my opinion that is it is a mistake, and you will find most will agree with you.
avatar
Dreamspace

Posts : 162
Join date : 2012-09-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: Einstein on truth is objective

Post by rombomb on Fri Jan 25, 2013 12:28 pm

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:Whats wrong with guesses and criticism?

Moral truths are opinions. You can't criticize opinions objectively. You cannot use deductive logic to deduce moral truth. You either take Kant's route or you go with consensus.
I don't know why you're bringing up deductive logic and Kant. Seems irrelevant to this discussion.

Guesses and criticism is how all knowledge is created. Its known as Conjectures and Refutations. See _Conjectures and Refutations_, by Karl Popper.

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:But thats because its objectively false. Why? Because of a criticism that successfully refutes it, which is that some people's favorite ice cream is vanilla.

It does not refute it. This is a misapplication of Popperian logic. Even if everybody on the planet agreed that chocolate was the best, that would not make it objective.
My criticism wasn't applied to the idea that *Chocolate is the best ice cream*. You are doing that. I was criticizing the idea that *Chocolate is everybody's favorite ice cream* -- which is objectively false.

Dreamspace wrote:
Even if nobody would or could ever say anything other than chocolate, it would still be a collective subjective truth. You are making a fundamental logical error by stating objectivity can have anything to say about what is good or bad.
You have not demonstrated that I made a logical error. In fact, you agreed with me earlier that *Chocolate is my favorite ice cream* is objectively true. So I don't know why you're changing your position now. Have you changed your mind? If so, please explain. If not, then what am I missing?

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:I don't need other people to tell me that *Chocolate ice cream is everybody's favorite ice cream* is objectively false to (conjecturally) know that its objectively false. Why? Because I have an unrefuted criticism of it.

If that is "unrefuted criticism", then so is saying that in my opinion the speed of light is 50 miles per second and is not a constant, varying across all frames of reference. Except in this instance you can use empirical proof to refute me, so that's a bad example.
Actually thats a great example. An observation (together with an explanation that the observation refutes the theory) can empirically refute the theory.

And that same reasoning is true for the theory that *Chocolate is everybody's favorite ice cream*. An observation that could refute it is *Vanilla is my favorite ice cream*. Note that these two ideas (the theory and its refutation) cannot both be objectively true at the same time because they (logically) contradict each other. See more explanation below.

Dreamspace wrote:
Somebody else's contradictory opinion is not empirical or objective fact refuting the subjective truth that chocolate ice cream is the best. Popper wouldn't consider somebody's opinions a refutation, and your attempt to dress opinions up as objective fact by remarking how it's objective fact that they hold them is syllogistic fallacy.
I'm not talking about opinions. I'm talking about objective facts. You are conflating the two. You've already agreed with me that *Chocolate is my favorite ice cream* can be an objective fact, but here you have twisted my idea to *Chocolate is the best ice cream* so that you can call my idea an opinion, but that is not *my* idea, its *your* idea. You've committed a straw-man fallacy -- you've created an argument that you call mine, and then you refute *your* argument.

Your's is vague -- a person can mean one of two ideas:

To clarify, I'm going to take my two ideas, and your idea, and I'm going to simplify them to forms of ideas:

(1) *Chocolate is my favorite ice cream* is an idea of the form *X is my favorite type of Y*.

(2) *Chocolate is everybody's favorite ice cream* is an idea of the form *X is everybody's favorite type of Y*.

But your sentence has two possible interpretations. Your sentence is *Chocolate is the best ice cream*. And depending on the way the person meant it, this is a representation of either my (1) or (2). So...

To successfully criticize (1), I need an observation that *My favorite type of Y is Z (not X)*.

To successfully criticize (2), I need an observation that *Any one person's favorite type of Y is Z (not X)*.

Note that these two ideas cannot both be objectively true (at the same time) since they contradict each other: *X is my favorite type of Y* and *My favorite type of Y is Z (not X)*. Do you agree that these can't both be objectively true?

And here's the other set of two contradictory ideas that cannot both be objectively true at the same time: *X is everybody's favorite type of Y* and *Any one person's favorite type of Y is Z (not X)*. Do you agree that these can't both be objectively true?

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:If you combine a justificationist epistemology with an objective morality, then you get someone who waits until other people reach a consensus before he starts solving his hurt-causing problems. This would be foolish.

Induction cannot determine moral values objectively, only make statistical analyses on subjective beliefs.
Induction is false for *all* types of knowledge creation. Its a justificationist mistake. If you want to discuss this, lets start another thread.

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:Instead, combine a critical rationalist epistemology, which already includes a belief in objective truth in all fields of knowledge rather than just scientific knowledge, then you get someone who starts solving his problems right away. Of course this requires that he has already learned that its good to solve one's hurt-causing problems.

You cannot create objective knowledge that way. This is a misapplication of deductive reason. You can't treat opinions as facts.
I have not. You are confusing opinion with fact, as I explained above.

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:Do you agree that its a mistake for this person to "hold the subjective truth that hurting himself is good," since holding that believes causes hurt on himself?

It is my opinion that is it is a mistake, and you will find most will agree with you.
So, if a person believes that he's not mistaken, then why should he change his ways?

Lets say that instead of him holding the belief that *(Psychologically) hurting myself is good,* lets say he holds the belief that *(Psychologically) hurting other people is good*. This person believes that he's not mistaken to hurt other people in order to get what he wants. How can this person learn that he's wrong?

Lets say this person is a 2 year old. How will he learn that he's wrong?

Do you think its ok for a parent to tell his child (I'm exaggerating for clarity): *Well, my opinion is that hurting other people is bad, but your opinion is equally valid to mine, so go ahead and continue hurting other people.*

How would you explain to a child that hurting other people is bad (or is a mistake) (or is immoral) (or is evil)?

Why do I bring up children? Because I think its important for one's ideas to be clear enough for others to understand. Of course each person will understand your ideas differently, since each person has a different set of background knowledge that he uses (consciously and subconsciously) to interpret the meaning you are trying to convey. So, using more common words is better than using less common words, in general, because it means requiring less background knowledge on the part of the person you're explaining your ideas to. For a child who doesn't know what the words subjective and objective mean (and subjective truth and objective truth), how can he understand you if your explanations use these terms? For the child, it would be better for you to create explanations of your ideas that don't use those words.

This holds true not just for children, but for adults too. You've used many words that are not part of my background knowledge, so I often misinterpret your intended meaning. Sometimes I know that I'm confused, other times I have no clue that I misunderstood. Its better for you (assuming you want to decrease the misunderstandings between us) to use words that you expect that I already know and to refrain from using words that you expect that I don't know. This is conducive to learning.

rombomb

Posts : 278
Join date : 2011-11-29
Location : USA

View user profile http://ramirustom.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

default Re: Einstein on truth is objective

Post by Dreamspace on Fri Jan 25, 2013 2:08 pm

rombomb wrote:I don't know why you're bringing up deductive logic and Kant. Seems irrelevant to this discussion.

All logical attempts to derive an objective moral system have been refuted. Objective morality is logically fallacious.

rombomb wrote:My criticism wasn't applied to the idea that *Chocolate is the best ice cream*. You are doing that. I was criticizing the idea that *Chocolate is everybody's favorite ice cream* -- which is objectively false.

All right, but this statement in no way, shape or form refutes subjective truth, nor does it prove subjective opinions somehow reside in the objective realm. All you have done is deal with objective facts regarding whether or not people hold opinions, which if anything shows how you cannot use objectivity to make a statement about what is good or bad.

rombomb wrote:You have not demonstrated that I made a logical error. In fact, you agreed with me earlier that *Chocolate is my favorite ice cream* is objectively true. So I don't know why you're changing your position now. Have you changed your mind? If so, please explain. If not, then what am I missing?

You've missed the point of every single post I've made yesterday. All of this was addressed in the very first post I made yesterday, every single point, and therefore my position has not changed whatsoever. Every critique you have presented today and yesterday had already been forestalled. All I have done is parse out the points from my original post over and over again. You have not identified my actual argument, and have not launched any criticisms of it.

Pointing out "Chocolate ice cream is my favorite ice cream" is objectively true provides absolutely no challenge to my argument whatsoever.

rombomb wrote:I'm not talking about opinions. I'm talking about objective facts. You are conflating the two.

No, you are by making an argument about objective facts as though this can somehow prove good or bad are objective, and therefore morality can be objective.

rombomb wrote:You've already agreed with me that *Chocolate is my favorite ice cream* can be an objective fact, but here you have twisted my idea to *Chocolate is the best ice cream* so that you can call my idea an opinion, but that is not *my* idea, its *your* idea. You've committed a straw-man fallacy -- you've created an argument that you call mine, and then you refute *your* argument.

I've told you "Chocolate ice cream is my favorite" is an objective. But if you're admitting "Chocolate is the best" cannot be objectively true because it is a value judgment, you have in effect destroyed your position on objective morality and conceded value cannot be determined objectively.

rombomb wrote:agree that these can't both be objectively true?

Try reading over my first post from yesterday morning. This has already been addressed.

rombomb wrote:Induction is false for *all* types of knowledge creation. Its a justificationist mistake. If you want to discuss this, lets start another thread.

If you admit that, that is a major challenge to the possible existence of an objective morality.

rombomb wrote:I have not. You are confusing opinion with fact, as I explained above.

No, I have not. This mistake has never been made. I was illustrating the difference between objective fact and subjective opinion. You have confused fact and opinion and inability to separate the two by believing in objective morality.

rombomb wrote:So, if a person believes that he's not mistaken, then why should he change his ways?

Lets say that instead of him holding the belief that *(Psychologically) hurting myself is good,* lets say he holds the belief that *(Psychologically) hurting other people is good*. This person believes that he's not mistaken to hurt other people in order to get what he wants. How can this person learn that he's wrong?

Lets say this person is a 2 year old. How will he learn that he's wrong?

You cannot learn these things through critical rationalism or deductive logic. There are no objective facts about what is good or bad. The only way he could learn these things is through being told they are bad by his parents and society. However, society will be imparting a collectively held subjective believe.

You can make a logical argument for not hurting yourself or others, but that logical argument will ultimately be operating upon a good–bad premise, making the entire thing contingent upon subjective truth. In this very particular respect, telling your child hurting yourself is bad is, in principle, the same as telling your child chocolate ice cream is good — you are dictating subjective value judgments to your child.

rombomb wrote:This holds true not just for children, but for adults too. You've used many words that are not part of my background knowledge, so I often misinterpret your intended meaning. Sometimes I know that I'm confused, other times I have no clue that I misunderstood. Its better for you (assuming you want to decrease the misunderstandings between us) to use words that you expect that I already know and to refrain from using words that you expect that I don't know. This is conducive to learning.

Yesterday I was in the Dimension chat room for the entire afternoon and evening, so I typed in a rushed manner. It takes extra work to simply it.

I'm not making a case for nihilism at all. I am a highly moralistic person. I'm simply stating that morality is inherently subjective. Good–bad value is inherently subjective. And that, when it comes down to the human experience and interaction with other people, subjectivity and emotion are better suited. Realizing morality is subjective is no more of a reason to stop valuing the lives of other human beings than it is a reason to stop having hedonistic motivations as the source of all human motivation is ultimately subjective and value–based in nature — even the desire to learn.

If you want to instill values in your child, you simply do. Humans have brain complexes to make them naturally abhor harm in most cases. We are hard-wired for empathy. You simply reinforce these ideas. Children don't need logical reasons or length explanations most of the time. When they are older, they will come to question these things for themselves once they have developed enough to make their own judgments.
avatar
Dreamspace

Posts : 162
Join date : 2012-09-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: Einstein on truth is objective

Post by rombomb on Sat Jan 26, 2013 12:39 am

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:I don't know why you're bringing up deductive logic and Kant. Seems irrelevant to this discussion.

All logical attempts to derive an objective moral system have been refuted. Objective morality is logically fallacious.
I'm not persuaded by that. But I think we can hold on this disagreement because of what I say below.
Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:My criticism wasn't applied to the idea that *Chocolate is the best ice cream*. You are doing that. I was criticizing the idea that *Chocolate is everybody's favorite ice cream* -- which is objectively false.

All right, but this statement in no way, shape or form refutes subjective truth, nor does it prove subjective opinions somehow reside in the objective realm. All you have done is deal with objective facts regarding whether or not people hold opinions, which if anything shows how you cannot use objectivity to make a statement about what is good or bad.
I'm not persuaded that it shows that. But I think we can skip this disagreement because of what I say below.

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:You have not demonstrated that I made a logical error. In fact, you agreed with me earlier that *Chocolate is my favorite ice cream* is objectively true. So I don't know why you're changing your position now. Have you changed your mind? If so, please explain. If not, then what am I missing?

You've missed the point of every single post I've made yesterday. All of this was addressed in the very first post I made yesterday, every single point, and therefore my position has not changed whatsoever. Every critique you have presented today and yesterday had already been forestalled. All I have done is parse out the points from my original post over and over again. You have not identified my actual argument, and have not launched any criticisms of it.

Pointing out "Chocolate ice cream is my favorite ice cream" is objectively true provides absolutely no challenge to my argument whatsoever.

rombomb wrote:I'm not talking about opinions. I'm talking about objective facts. You are conflating the two.

No, you are by making an argument about objective facts as though this can somehow prove good or bad are objective, and therefore morality can be objective.
I explain below.

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:You've already agreed with me that *Chocolate is my favorite ice cream* can be an objective fact, but here you have twisted my idea to *Chocolate is the best ice cream* so that you can call my idea an opinion, but that is not *my* idea, its *your* idea. You've committed a straw-man fallacy -- you've created an argument that you call mine, and then you refute *your* argument.

I've told you "Chocolate ice cream is my favorite" is an objective. But if you're admitting "Chocolate is the best" cannot be objectively true because it is a value judgment, you have in effect destroyed your position on objective morality and conceded value cannot be determined objectively.
No I haven't, see below.

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:agree that these can't both be objectively true?

Try reading over my first post from yesterday morning. This has already been addressed.

rombomb wrote:Induction is false for *all* types of knowledge creation. Its a justificationist mistake. If you want to discuss this, lets start another thread.

If you admit that, that is a major challenge to the possible existence of an objective morality.
You haven't persuaded me of that.

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:I have not. You are confusing opinion with fact, as I explained above.

No, I have not. This mistake has never been made. I was illustrating the difference between objective fact and subjective opinion. You have confused fact and opinion and inability to separate the two by believing in objective morality.
No, what I was doing was showing you that *Chocolate is the best ice cream* is vague, it has two possible meanings, each of which is either objectively true or false, and that opinion is irrelevant. I was not using this to imply that objective morality exists. Its my argument below that does that.

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:So, if a person believes that he's not mistaken, then why should he change his ways?

Lets say that instead of him holding the belief that *(Psychologically) hurting myself is good,* lets say he holds the belief that *(Psychologically) hurting other people is good*. This person believes that he's not mistaken to hurt other people in order to get what he wants. How can this person learn that he's wrong?

Lets say this person is a 2 year old. How will he learn that he's wrong?

You cannot learn these things through critical rationalism or deductive logic. There are no objective facts about what is good or bad. The only way he could learn these things is through being told they are bad by his parents and society.
No. The individual also creates new moral ideas. If this didn't happen then we would still be living like humans 100,000 years ago.

And how does an individual create new moral ideas? By guesses and criticism. Consider the first guy to ever buy a phone for his kid. He guessed that it might be beneficial to the protection of his kid. And he thought critically of his idea too. And the idea survived the criticism -- i.e. he created a new value judgement that buying a phone for his kid is good. And then other people learned from him.

Dreamspace wrote:
However, society will be imparting a collectively held subjective believe.
I don't understand what that means because it seems like you're saying that society has a unified thing that each of us learns from, which is not true.

Dreamspace wrote:
You can make a logical argument for not hurting yourself or others, but that logical argument will ultimately be operating upon a good–bad premise, making the entire thing contingent upon subjective truth. In this very particular respect, telling your child hurting yourself is bad is, in principle, the same as telling your child chocolate ice cream is good — you are dictating subjective value judgments to your child.
Dictating? That doesn't make sense at all. If a parent talks to his child and explains that X is good because of reasons A, B, C, and if the kid is persuaded by those reasons, then he has decided on his own accord that X is good. This is not dictating (aka coercion). Its persuasion. Blurring the line between coercion and persuasion is a mistake.

Dreamspace wrote:
rombomb wrote:This holds true not just for children, but for adults too. You've used many words that are not part of my background knowledge, so I often misinterpret your intended meaning. Sometimes I know that I'm confused, other times I have no clue that I misunderstood. Its better for you (assuming you want to decrease the misunderstandings between us) to use words that you expect that I already know and to refrain from using words that you expect that I don't know. This is conducive to learning.

Yesterday I was in the Dimension chat room for the entire afternoon and evening, so I typed in a rushed manner. It takes extra work to simply it.

I'm not making a case for nihilism at all. I am a highly moralistic person. I'm simply stating that morality is inherently subjective. Good–bad value is inherently subjective. And that, when it comes down to the human experience and interaction with other people,
And reading, and creating one's own moral ideas (as I explained above).

Dreamspace wrote:
subjectivity and emotion are better suited.
Better suited to do what?

Dreamspace wrote:
Realizing morality is subjective is no more of a reason to stop valuing the lives of other human beings than it is a reason to stop having hedonistic motivations as the source of all human motivation is ultimately subjective and value–based in nature — even the desire to learn.

If you want to instill values in your child, you simply do. Humans have brain complexes to make them naturally abhor harm in most cases. We are hard-wired for empathy. You simply reinforce these ideas. Children don't need logical reasons or length explanations most of the time.
Most of the time, when its not harmful, is nothing to worry about. Its the sometimes, when its harmful, that is something to worry about, a lot!! So how should these situations be dealt with? Did you see this thread (skip to where it says "So I'ma just tell a story":

http://funhsps.niceboard.org/t3423-hsp-issue-not-everyone-is-supposed-to-like-you

Dreamspace wrote:
When they are older, they will come to question these things for themselves once they have developed enough to make their own judgments.
That sounds like you're saying that kids shouldn't make their own value judgements. And that they shouldn't do it yet because their capacity for reason is not "developed" enough. I find this to be a severe problem.

Consider this moral idea: *Waiting until one is older before he starts using his capacity for reason (in order to make value judgements) is bad.* This is true for everybody.

A person cannot go from never using his capacity for reason (in order to make value judgements) and then abruptly switch to using his capacity for reason (in order to make value judgements). He must start from the beginning, or as early as he can speak in sentences. Reasoning is a skill. Like all skills, they are learned incrementally. That means that one must practice his reasoning skill, and improve it incrementally, over many many years, long before he is considered an adult.


Here's something else that could help us agree. You're saying that *Action X is good* is a value judgement, which is a subjective truth, meaning that it cannot hold true for everybody. But my moral idea above, holds true for everybody. Or do you disagree?

And here's another try. What do you think *Action X is good* means?

(1) I believe that if I do X, it'll be beneficial for me and others.

(2) Doing X is *actually* beneficial for him and others.

What I'm trying to do is figure out what words you wouldn't use to specify value judgments, so I avoided using 'good/bad/evil/moral/immoral'.

I also avoided using 'subjective/objective/opinion/fact' so that we don't argue over vague things that we haven't agreed on yet.

So what do you think? Does it mean (1) or (2) or something else?

rombomb

Posts : 278
Join date : 2011-11-29
Location : USA

View user profile http://ramirustom.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

default Re: Einstein on truth is objective

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum