Objective vs Subjective Truth

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"); such homework-help-style questions can be asked and answered on PhiloPedia: The Philosophy Wiki. If your question is not already answered on the appropriate PhiloPedia page, then see How to Request Content on PhiloPedia to see how to ask your informational question using the wiki.
Post Reply
GE Morton
Posts: 1484
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Objective vs Subjective Truth

Post by GE Morton » May 26th, 2019, 12:05 pm

GE Morton wrote:
May 26th, 2019, 11:31 am
A proposition asserting motion must specify, or at least imply, a reference point. That proposition will be objective.
I should have qualified that, saying, "To be cognitive, a proposition asserting motion must specify, or at least imply, a reference point."

User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 1309
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Objective vs Subjective Truth

Post by Sculptor1 » May 26th, 2019, 5:14 pm

GE Morton wrote:
May 26th, 2019, 12:00 pm
Steve3007 wrote:
May 26th, 2019, 9:15 am

But in the specific example of the sourness or otherwise of lemons, I wouldn't tie that quite so neatly to acidity.

The pH value (acidity) of a substance is an objectively measurable quantity in the sense that it is possible to describe an apparatus that any person could, in principle, manufacture and which would, when applied to the same lemon in similar environmental circumstances, yield the same result on its numerical readout as another identical piece of apparatus. i.e. the truth condition of a statement like "this lemon has pH of 2.5" is public.

On the other hand, the declaration of sourness by various human beings, as a result (we assume) of their interpretations of the input from their taste buds, doesn't necessarily directly map to acidity. It's not a quantitative output from a reproducible chain of events in an unambiguously deterministic machine. It's an utterance by a human being, presumably as a result of a private sequence of events in their mind.
Let's draw a distinction between two propositions:

1. "This lemon is sour."

2. "This lemon tastes sour."

Calling #1 "objective" relies upon the assumption that the speaker's taste buds are "normal" and reliably detect acids (this is an aspect of being a "suitably situated observer"). If this assumption were to prove false, then the proposition would not be objective and may be false.

#2 is subjective, because the speaker is reporting upon a phenomenal experience that he is having. It may be true, even if #1 is false.

Proposition #1 is about something in the world; #2 is about the speaker.
Define "normal"?

GE Morton
Posts: 1484
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Objective vs Subjective Truth

Post by GE Morton » May 26th, 2019, 6:15 pm

Sculptor1 wrote:
May 26th, 2019, 5:14 pm

Define "normal"?
Sure. It means that the person has neural sensors on the tongue and palate which respond to certain classes of chemicals (salts, acids, bases, sugars, and certain proteins), as do most other mammals (except cats, who, due to a genetic defect, cannot taste sugars).

User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 1309
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Objective vs Subjective Truth

Post by Sculptor1 » May 26th, 2019, 6:23 pm

GE Morton wrote:
May 26th, 2019, 6:15 pm
Sculptor1 wrote:
May 26th, 2019, 5:14 pm

Define "normal"?
Sure. It means that the person has neural sensors on the tongue and palate which respond to certain classes of chemicals (salts, acids, bases, sugars, and certain proteins), as do most other mammals (except cats, who, due to a genetic defect, cannot taste sugars).
I think this is what is called a platitudinous response. Normal, above, implies far more than the simple presence of taste receptors. By your definition of "normal", we have nothing but subjectivity since pretty much all humans have such taste receptors and yet there is constant disagreements between normal people about how things taste. So you have not met your aims here.

GE Morton
Posts: 1484
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Objective vs Subjective Truth

Post by GE Morton » May 26th, 2019, 6:35 pm

Sculptor1 wrote:
May 26th, 2019, 6:23 pm

I think this is what is called a platitudinous response. Normal, above, implies far more than the simple presence of taste receptors.
Oh? What, exactly?

"Normal" means,

"1a : conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern
b : according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle
2 : occurring naturally"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/normal

It doesn't imply anything beyond that.
By your definition of "normal", we have nothing but subjectivity since pretty much all humans have such taste receptors and yet there is constant disagreements between normal people about how things taste.
No, there isn't. There is constant disagreement about the aesthetics of a flavor or flavor complex (whether the person likes it or not), but no disagreement that, say, salt tastes salty --- among people with normal palates.

User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 1309
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Objective vs Subjective Truth

Post by Sculptor1 » May 26th, 2019, 6:46 pm

GE Morton wrote:
May 26th, 2019, 6:35 pm
Sculptor1 wrote:
May 26th, 2019, 6:23 pm

I think this is what is called a platitudinous response. Normal, above, implies far more than the simple presence of taste receptors.
Oh? What, exactly?

"Normal" means,

"1a : conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern
b : according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle
2 : occurring naturally"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/normal

It doesn't imply anything beyond that.
By your definition of "normal", we have nothing but subjectivity since pretty much all humans have such taste receptors and yet there is constant disagreements between normal people about how things taste.
No, there isn't. There is constant disagreement about the aesthetics of a flavor or flavor complex (whether the person likes it or not), but no disagreement that, say, salt tastes salty --- among people with normal palates.
Having normal tastebuds does not result in objectivity. Stop dodging.

GE Morton
Posts: 1484
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Objective vs Subjective Truth

Post by GE Morton » May 26th, 2019, 10:42 pm

Sculptor1 wrote:
May 26th, 2019, 6:46 pm

Having normal tastebuds does not result in objectivity.
It allows one to assert certain objective propositions regarding taste (just as having normal vision allows one to make certain objective propositions regarding color, e.g., "The sky is blue").

"Objectivity" means something different than "objective." The former denotes an ability to analyze or describe a situation without biases or preconceptions. It applies to people. "Objective" applies to propositions, and denotes those that have public truth conditions.
Stop dodging.
???

What do you think I'm dodging?

User avatar
Steve3007
Posts: 6961
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Objective vs Subjective Truth

Post by Steve3007 » May 27th, 2019, 3:04 am

GE Morton wrote:Let's draw a distinction between two propositions:

1. "This lemon is sour."

2. "This lemon tastes sour."

Calling #1 "objective" relies upon the assumption that the speaker's taste buds are "normal" and reliably detect acids (this is an aspect of being a "suitably situated observer"). If this assumption were to prove false, then the proposition would not be objective and may be false.

#2 is subjective, because the speaker is reporting upon a phenomenal experience that he is having. It may be true, even if #1 is false.

Proposition #1 is about something in the world; #2 is about the speaker.
Yes, I see the logic of your point.

So, we can simply and clearly define a synthetic proposition as subjective if the empirical test of its truth is accessible to only one person, yes? I guess we could also say that this one person is the person who uttered the proposition - the subject.

Although maybe we don't necessarily need to do that second part? Returning to an example you gave earlier:

"I have a headache".

As you said earlier, this is a subjective synthetic proposition and the subject in this case is me. But I guess the proposition:

"You have a headache"

Is also a subjective synthetic proposition, in the sense that it is still testable by only one person (you), but the subject in this case is not the proposer.

OK, so if we stick to defining a synthetic proposition as subjective if the empirical test of its truth is accessible to only one person, then it seems to me that we have the interesting question of the arbitrariness of the number "one" in this definition. Why just one? Why not, say, two? It seems that in defining subjective and objective we have the numbers one and infinity, and nothing in between:

The verifying/falsifying evidence of subjective propositions is available to one person.
The verifying/falsifying evidence of objective propositions is (at least in principle) available to every conceivable person or equivalent sentient being that lives, has lived, will live or could theoretically ever live.

Perhaps it might be best to ditch the number "one" and simply state that:

The verifying/falsifying evidence of subjective propositions is not universally available. i.e. it is available only to a subset of the set of all possible sentient beings.

User avatar
Steve3007
Posts: 6961
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Objective vs Subjective Truth

Post by Steve3007 » May 27th, 2019, 3:08 am

BTW, I confined myself specifically to talking about synthetic propositions above, and I assumed that you would agree that "I have a headache" is synthetic, not analytic. I'm pretty sure that's a safe assumption?

GE Morton
Posts: 1484
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Objective vs Subjective Truth

Post by GE Morton » May 27th, 2019, 9:08 am

Steve3007 wrote:
May 27th, 2019, 3:08 am
BTW, I confined myself specifically to talking about synthetic propositions above, and I assumed that you would agree that "I have a headache" is synthetic, not analytic. I'm pretty sure that's a safe assumption?
Yes. :)

GE Morton
Posts: 1484
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Objective vs Subjective Truth

Post by GE Morton » May 27th, 2019, 2:26 pm

Steve3007 wrote:
May 27th, 2019, 3:04 am

OK, so if we stick to defining a synthetic proposition as subjective if the empirical test of its truth is accessible to only one person, then it seems to me that we have the interesting question of the arbitrariness of the number "one" in this definition. Why just one? Why not, say, two? It seems that in defining subjective and objective we have the numbers one and infinity, and nothing in between:

The verifying/falsifying evidence of subjective propositions is available to one person.
The verifying/falsifying evidence of objective propositions is (at least in principle) available to every conceivable person or equivalent sentient being that lives, has lived, will live or could theoretically ever live.
Not every conceivable person. Only those persons suitably situated (and equipped) to apprehend the truth conditions.

Why just one? For two reasons. First, subjective propositions are those which report upon, or depend upon, some internal state of the speaker (a feeling, preference, sensation, etc.), which is necessarily accessible only to the speaker. Of course, the truth conditions for many other propositions may be accessible to only one person at any given time because no one else is suitably situated (e.g., the only witness to a crime or accident), but they are not necessarily so limited.

Secondly, if the truth conditions for a proposition can be observed by a second person, why not a third? A fourth, etc.? You would need either some explanation of the special status of that second person, or allow the the objective/subjective distinction to collapse.

User avatar
Apoorve84
New Trial Member
Posts: 9
Joined: July 20th, 2019, 4:18 am

Re: Objective vs Subjective Truth

Post by Apoorve84 » July 20th, 2019, 4:36 am

Truth and false depends upon consciousness of the society. It is always subjective. So I tend to differentiate between Fact and Truth. I define facts as your objective truth, always true whatever the case. We might not know it or feel it but it is there in existence. Fact can be explained scientifically but truth can not.

GE Morton
Posts: 1484
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Objective vs Subjective Truth

Post by GE Morton » July 20th, 2019, 7:45 pm

Apoorve84 wrote:
July 20th, 2019, 4:36 am
Truth and false depends upon consciousness of the society. It is always subjective. So I tend to differentiate between Fact and Truth. I define facts as your objective truth, always true whatever the case. We might not know it or feel it but it is there in existence.
And how do you know that? Your "objective truth" is non-cognitive and meaningless.

User avatar
Apoorve84
New Trial Member
Posts: 9
Joined: July 20th, 2019, 4:18 am

Re: Objective vs Subjective Truth

Post by Apoorve84 » July 20th, 2019, 8:22 pm

GE Morton wrote:
July 20th, 2019, 7:45 pm
Apoorve84 wrote:
July 20th, 2019, 4:36 am
Truth and false depends upon consciousness of the society. It is always subjective. So I tend to differentiate between Fact and Truth. I define facts as your objective truth, always true whatever the case. We might not know it or feel it but it is there in existence.
And how do you know that? Your "objective truth" is non-cognitive and meaningless.
Fact can be explained scientifically but truth can not - that is how

User avatar
Apoorve84
New Trial Member
Posts: 9
Joined: July 20th, 2019, 4:18 am

Re: Objective vs Subjective Truth

Post by Apoorve84 » July 20th, 2019, 8:24 pm

GE Morton wrote:
July 20th, 2019, 7:45 pm
Apoorve84 wrote:
July 20th, 2019, 4:36 am
Truth and false depends upon consciousness of the society. It is always subjective. So I tend to differentiate between Fact and Truth. I define facts as your objective truth, always true whatever the case. We might not know it or feel it but it is there in existence.
And how do you know that? Your "objective truth" is non-cognitive and meaningless.
As I wrote before, facts can be explained scientifically.
that is how

Post Reply