Philosophy Discussion Forums

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑May 16th, 2019, 4:17 pm

Todd wrote: ↑March 31st, 2019, 8:12 pm I'm writing a blog post exploring whether the idea of objective truth (defined below) is a valid and useful concept.

It would be most useful to recognize that all truth is bound to the subject. In as much as all truthful statements have to be recognized and identified by a human subject.
All claims that such truths have any kind of objective quality requires certain things to be agreed upon by those that apprehend the statements. |Thus any claims made must also be examined in reference to agreed parameters. Such parameters cannot avoid cultural and historical definition and are therefore relative to the those factors.

Here's an example:
10 people suck on a lemon. Some say that the lemon is sour, some that it is sweeter than normal, others say it is typically sour of lemons generally.
A scientist comes along hoping to determine the objective truth of the degree of sourness of the lemon. After a few moments, and with the help of a machine, the scientist declares the lemon to have a sourness factor of 7.56.
The 10 people rely on their experience of lemons, but that makes their results subjective. The question is whether or not the machine is any better. It uses data which has been gathered on lemons, so the claim is that the result is better and more objective than the humans. But surely the data itself is machine subjective and relies on the arbitrary experimental selection of the lemons it has been 'fed'.

GE Morton wrote: ↑May 17th, 2019, 9:43 amYou're confusing objective/subjective with absolute/relative. While the only "absolute" truths are tautologies, an objective truth is one for which the truth conditions for the proposition asserting it are public, i.e., verifiable by any suitably situated observer. A subjective truth is one whose truth conditions are private, accessible only to the speaker.

GE Morton wrote: ↑May 17th, 2019, 9:43 am

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑May 16th, 2019, 4:17 pm

It would be most useful to recognize that all truth is bound to the subject. In as much as all truthful statements have to be recognized and identified by a human subject.
All claims that such truths have any kind of objective quality requires certain things to be agreed upon by those that apprehend the statements. |Thus any claims made must also be examined in reference to agreed parameters. Such parameters cannot avoid cultural and historical definition and are therefore relative to the those factors.

Here's an example:
10 people suck on a lemon. Some say that the lemon is sour, some that it is sweeter than normal, others say it is typically sour of lemons generally.
A scientist comes along hoping to determine the objective truth of the degree of sourness of the lemon. After a few moments, and with the help of a machine, the scientist declares the lemon to have a sourness factor of 7.56.
The 10 people rely on their experience of lemons, but that makes their results subjective. The question is whether or not the machine is any better. It uses data which has been gathered on lemons, so the claim is that the result is better and more objective than the humans. But surely the data itself is machine subjective and relies on the arbitrary experimental selection of the lemons it has been 'fed'.

You're confusing objective/subjective with absolute/relative. While the only "absolute" truths are tautologies, an objective truth is one for which the truth conditions for the proposition asserting it are public, i.e., verifiable by any suitably situated observer. A subjective truth is one whose truth conditions are private, accessible only to the speaker.

"This lemon is sour" is an objective proposition.

...It means the juice of the lemon has a high acid content.

That fact is verifiable by anyone who either tastes or analyzes the juice.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑May 18th, 2019, 1:44 pm

"This lemon is sour" is an objective proposition.

And yet it can be false

...It means the juice of the lemon has a high acid content.

Nope... "high" is a value judgment

That fact is verifiable by anyone who either tastes or analyzes the juice.

Not at all. Who is "anyone"?

Consul wrote: ↑May 17th, 2019, 12:57 pm

GE Morton wrote: ↑May 17th, 2019, 9:43 amYou're confusing objective/subjective with absolute/relative. While the only "absolute" truths are tautologies, an objective truth is one for which the truth conditions for the proposition asserting it are public, i.e., verifiable by any suitably situated observer. A subjective truth is one whose truth conditions are private, accessible only to the speaker.

An introspective truth about a private experience is an epistemically objective truth about something ontically subjective.

GE Morton wrote: ↑May 18th, 2019, 10:53 pmWe've covered this. Searle's "epistemically/ontically" analysis is vacuous.

GE Morton wrote: ↑May 18th, 2019, 10:49 pm

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑May 18th, 2019, 1:44 pm
And yet it can be false

Of course. An objective proposition may be either true or false. E.g., "San Francisco is the capital of the US" is objectively false.

Nope... "high" is a value judgment

No. it isn't. It means the acid content is high relative to other foods, or perhaps high relative to other lemons. No values are involved.

Not at all. Who is "anyone"?

The answer is given in the statement.

GE Morton wrote: ↑May 18th, 2019, 10:49 pm
No. it isn't. It means the acid content is high relative to other foods, or perhaps high relative to other lemons. No values are involved.

Todd wrote: ↑March 31st, 2019, 8:12 pm I'm writing a blog post exploring whether the idea of objective truth (defined below) is a valid and useful concept.

What do you think? I believe objective truth to be important and useful, but I'm having a hard time explaining why. What are the philosophical arguments for and against this idea?

Objective Truth defined: no matter what we believe to be the case, some things will always be true, and other things will always be false. Our beliefs, whatever they are, have no bearing on the facts of the world around us. That which is true is always true — even if we stop believing it and even if we stop existing at all.

It seems an implied debate about objective vs. subjective truth underlies much of public discourse in political and cultural areas. Some advocate subjectivism - arguing for subjective truth and criticize the validity of things like reason, science, logic, etc. These arguments seem to align with Postmodern Philosophy.

Others subscribe to a more Modern world view which upholds the importance of objective truth, science, etc and the inherent logic and predictability in the world around us.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑May 19th, 2019, 5:47 am
LOL.
You mean an objective statement is relative?

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑May 16th, 2019, 4:17 pm It would be most useful to recognize that all truth is bound to the subject. In as much as all truthful statements have to be recognized and identified by a human subject.

GE Morton wrote: ↑May 21st, 2019, 10:32 am

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑May 19th, 2019, 5:47 am
LOL.
You mean an objective statement is relative?

It can be, yes. The absolute/relative dichotomy is is unrelated to the subjective/objective dichotomy. "George is six feet tall" and "George is taller than John" are both objective.

Arjen wrote: ↑May 23rd, 2019, 1:59 pm

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑May 16th, 2019, 4:17 pm It would be most useful to recognize that all truth is bound to the subject. In as much as all truthful statements have to be recognized and identified by a human subject.

That is exactly the point.

During the period known as 'enlightenment' rationalism was set out agai st empiricism. Empiricism being information derived by observation. Rationalism being information derived by tje ratio.

I humbly submit that a correct thought is derived from 2 premisses. One subjective concerning the object being an observation. One objective concerning universal categories relating to the observed object. So, the ratio is neccessarily objective.

By properly analysing and discussing things, we can arrive at intersubjective truths, because the ratio is the same in every being. Some suggest that there is only 1 ratio, within which everything exists (Christianity in Greek tradition for example) or that is quantified into all things (Christianity in Latin tradition for example).

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑May 23rd, 2019, 5:25 pm

GE Morton wrote: ↑May 21st, 2019, 10:32 am

It can be, yes. The absolute/relative dichotomy is is unrelated to the subjective/objective dichotomy. "George is six feet tall" and "George is taller than John" are both objective.

Avoid hyperbole. It is NOT unrelated. If it were unrelated there would be no such thing as a relative objective statement.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑May 23rd, 2019, 5:28 pm
Something as banal as "murder is wrong" is not devoid of subject or relationship. At best it is a tautology. But cannot be absolute or universal.