The Cure For Global Warming

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
Post Reply
User avatar
Halc
Posts: 405
Joined: March 17th, 2018, 9:47 pm

Re: The Cure For Global Warming

Post by Halc »

Barry Sears wrote: May 16th, 2018, 1:10 amI am not sure if you understand apsidal precession or orbital precession. Please excuse me if you do.
I said what it was just above. Apsidal precession is a procession of the direction of the major semi-axis [of an elliptical orbit]. There is a nice animation of it at the top of the wiki page on it.
If I was to try and explain it simply as I understand it, imagine a small ball on your kitchen bench representing the sun. Now place a hula hoop over this with the sun in the centre. Pick up one side of the hula hoop. This presents a change in the Earth's orbital path relative to the sun. As you lift the hula hoop the distance from Earth to the sun increases, this creates the cooling phase and as you drop the hula hoop the distance decreases and so this is the warming phase.
Your understanding is mistaken. A circular orbit has no major semi-axis and does not exhibit apsidal precession at all.
If you pick up one side of the hoop (without lowering the other side), the sun is no longer in the plane of the hoop. This is a violation of the most basic physics: F=MA, Newton's second law. 'A' (acceleration) points to the centre of the hoop, but 'F' (gravitational force) points a different direction, towards the sun. This cannot be. Yes, if Earth could do this, it would be further away on average the more the hoop was lifted, but this cannot happen.
The hoop can be tilted differently, but the sun would remain at the centre and the change would have no effect on orbital distance. Such a tilt is called orbital inclination, and precession of the axis of this tilt (not the amount of tilt itself) is called nodal precession, and has a very long period which I cannot find, but possibly longer than the life expectancy of the planet.

A change to the major semi-axis of an elliptical orbit should have no effect other than which constellations are in the night sky when the Earth is furthest from the sun. The eccentricity (the difference between the the nearest and furthest distance) does cycle, and seems to be the dominant driver of recent ice ages. A circular orbit has zero eccentricity. Venus has the most circular orbit of the planets, or Triton does if you consider all the moons.
User avatar
Barry Sears
Posts: 322
Joined: December 2nd, 2014, 4:05 am

Re: The Cure For Global Warming

Post by Barry Sears »

Huh that's funny. What a plonker. I got so excited when I saw the visual display of this as the moving image on Wiki. This image can be viewed two ways. I first saw the three dimensional aspect to this and it is as I explained. Because this was a contemporary scientific theory and it produced the result of which I believe is required to produce the evolutionary changes for life on Earth, I failed to indulge deeper into the concept. I thank you for your time in pushing my ideas as it has developed my fuller comprehension of planetary motion theories.
Yes as one views this moving image simply, two dimensionally, your description of the motion becomes clear. Sorry for my small absence, many things have occupied my time. Writing on the subject does admit that this is a good model but it is still not necessarily defined as it is still only a theory. My investigation will continue and at the moment it seems to be the cosmic drag theory that when combined with the basic motions may produce a more accurate model, allowing for the shift in time that terrestrial evolution expresses.
User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: The Cure For Global Warming

Post by ThomasHobbes »

Theboombody wrote: January 14th, 2014, 3:07 pm I always wonder why people feel better technology is the solution to global warming when technology is causing global warming in the first place. I would think less technology would be better on the environment. Look at the Amish. Those guys are better environmentalists than anybody today, and they don't even try to be. They don't pile up huge mountains of litter or cause any pollution.

I think if we really care about the health of the planet, we'll forget gimmicks like carbon credits and solar power, and just be more like the Amish. True, we might live in less comfort and may not live as long, but we'll definitely be more likely to ensure the future health of the planet.
I'd rather be poked in the eye repeatedly with a blunt stick than be Amish.
If you want to go that way then you are perfectly free to dump your PC in the trash and join the farm.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7932
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: The Cure For Global Warming

Post by LuckyR »

ThomasHobbes wrote: May 22nd, 2018, 8:33 am
Theboombody wrote: January 14th, 2014, 3:07 pm I always wonder why people feel better technology is the solution to global warming when technology is causing global warming in the first place. I would think less technology would be better on the environment. Look at the Amish. Those guys are better environmentalists than anybody today, and they don't even try to be. They don't pile up huge mountains of litter or cause any pollution.

I think if we really care about the health of the planet, we'll forget gimmicks like carbon credits and solar power, and just be more like the Amish. True, we might live in less comfort and may not live as long, but we'll definitely be more likely to ensure the future health of the planet.
I'd rather be poked in the eye repeatedly with a blunt stick than be Amish.
If you want to go that way then you are perfectly free to dump your PC in the trash and join the farm.
I don't disagree, though he does bring up the point that this is more of a social problem to convince those with and without decision making responsibility, to do the plan, as much as it is to come up with the plan.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Halc
Posts: 405
Joined: March 17th, 2018, 9:47 pm

Re: The Cure For Global Warming

Post by Halc »

Barry Sears wrote: May 22nd, 2018, 5:44 am Huh that's funny. What a plonker. I got so excited when I saw the visual display of this as the moving image on Wiki. This image can be viewed two ways. I first saw the three dimensional aspect to this and it is as I explained.
OK, I can see that too. Not hard to interpret the animation as a 3D lifting of the ring on one side, but only if they stop it soon enough, which they do.
User avatar
Halc
Posts: 405
Joined: March 17th, 2018, 9:47 pm

Re: The Cure For Global Warming

Post by Halc »

As for the Amish thing, they've arguably got more of a carbon footprint that some of the rest of us. Homes are heated by wood, which is renewable I guess, but puts out a lot more carbon per BTU than say natural gas. Meanwhile they take more acres of land per capita. If we all lived as the Amish, we'd all die from lack of space to do it. Of course that would solve the problem.

Good news is that climate trends is probably not a huge worry for us or for our descendants. If the Holocene extinction event doesn't wipe out everything humans find edible, we'll probably survive it, but technological civilization will probably fall well before the food goes extinct, and that fall will be the cure. New plants will flourish and (over long term) stabilize the carbon levels, but barring a nuclear winter, it will be a long time indeed before the ice ages return. Earth has been through this before and thrives each time.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: The Cure For Global Warming

Post by Steve3007 »

RJG wrote:Climate changes due to shifts in solar orbit, not human activity.
Shifts in the sun's orbit? Are you sure you're mot referring to something like the precession of the equinoxes in the Earth's rotation? That happens on a timescale of about 26,000 years and is thought to cause regular changes to the Earth's climate on that timescale.
According to NASA scientists, so-called “climate change” is mostly driven by factors unrelated to human activity. A past study by the agency found the Sun has been the main factor behind changes in the Earth’s climate over the past 1,000 years.
Again, according to NASA scientists, so-called “climate change” is mostly driven by factors unrelated to human activity. A past study by the agency found the Sun has been the main factor behind changes in the Earth’s climate over the past 1,000 years.
Please provide a reference to this study so that it can be examined/observed/sensed to assess whether, by virtue of the empirical evidence that it provides, it contains anything that might be regarded as knowledge or truth.
Umm, sorry, I don't see a resemblance, unless you are of course comparing your own claims; this claim "Steve is the primary cause of all dropped things" with your other claim, "man is the primary cause of climate change". And if so, then YES, I see a resemblance! ...both of these are pure NONSENSE!
There are many ways in which the Earth's climate can change and many ways that it has changed in the past, and will change in the future, for many different reasons. At some points the evidence suggests that it was almost entirely covered by ice. At some other points it was very much warmer, with very much higher sea levels, than today. In its early history it was a ball of molten rock. Before that it didn't exist. In the distant future it will be affected by the gradually increasing energy output of the Sun. It is affected by the precession of the equinoxes, sunspots, the movements of the continents causing large scale changes in ocean and atmospheric currents, etc. So to simply state that because all of these things have affected the Earth's climate in the past, and the Earth's climate is not static over long timescales, human activity cannot be a major driver of climate change now is absurd and obviously doesn't count as a logical argument.

Evidence (that you presumably reject primarily not because of any alternative evidence but because it relies on empirical observation which you have stated many times you don't think can be trusted?) strongly suggests that the production of greenhouse gasses, such as CO2, during the industrial age is a major cause of the particular changes to the climate that have started to happen relatively recently.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: The Cure For Global Warming

Post by Steve3007 »

viewtopic.php?p=341286#p341286
RJG wrote:1. Climate change issue --
Those that believe in "climate change" do so because of what they have read and heard.
Those that don't believe in "climate change" do so because of what they have read and heard.
True1. And the same is true of every empirical proposition of which we don't have direct personal experience or the practical ability to gain that experience. For example, I believe that a country called Australia exists because of what I've read and heard. I believe that a man called Henry VIII once existed because of what I've read and heard. etc.

1(When you say "believe in climate change" I presume that's shorthand for: "accept the proposition that the evidence suggests that greenhouse gases created as a result of human activity have a significant effect on the Earth's climate.")
So then whose "read and heard" is more true? ...we all seemingly believe OUR "read and heard" is more true than YOUR "read and heard".
False. Falsifying example: I once read that the Earth is 6000 years old. I don't believe that to be true despite the fact that it was me who read it and not somebody else.
If one claims their "read and heard" is based on "such and such" (e.g. "solid science"), then this "such and such" is AGAIN, only just something that we've "read and heard". If our beliefs are based on just "read and heard"'s, then are they necessarily more true than another's?
How would you answer that question when it concerns things that you yourself have read and heard?

For example, from a previous conversation:
RJG wrote:Again, "observations" are useless in determining truths. For example, I observe the world is flat. I see an end point/edge to the ocean. If a boat sails out there far enough it will fall off the edge. Etc etc. Moral of the story: "Observations" are not to be trusted when ascertaining truths. ...forget about them!
Why did you use the observation "the world is flat" as an illustration of your proposition that observations are not to be trusted? Why that particular observation? Is it because you have already concluded that the world is not flat and that this observation is less trustworthy than some others? Have you read/heard various accounts proposing that the world is flat and read/heard other accounts proposing that it is (approximately) spherical, and decided that the former accounts are less trustworthy than the latter? If so, how have you come to that conclusion (assuming you haven't personally traveled into Earth orbit or beyond)? What criteria did you use?

I suspect the criteria that you used are essentially similar to those that rational people use to assess various other propositions about the world, such as those relating to anthropogenic climate change.
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: The Cure For Global Warming

Post by RJG »

--

Steve, firstly I don't think this discussion is necessarily about Climate Change, but more about why we personally hold something as true (i.e. subjective truths). In other words, we personally hold something as true because of something we've read and heard. So we may want to move our discussion (if it gets more involved in this direction) to another area. But here is fine for now.

RJG wrote:Those that believe in "climate change" do so because of what they have read and heard.
Those that don't believe in "climate change" do so because of what they have read and heard.
Steve3007 wrote:True1. And the same is true of every empirical proposition of which we don't have direct personal experience or the practical ability to gain that experience. For example, I believe that a country called Australia exists because of what I've read and heard. I believe that a man called Henry VIII once existed because of what I've read and heard. etc.

1(When you say "believe in climate change" I presume that's shorthand for: "accept the proposition that the evidence suggests that greenhouse gases created as a result of human activity have a significant effect on the Earth's climate.")
Yes. Agreed.

RJG wrote:So then whose "read and heard" is more true? ...we all seemingly believe OUR "read and heard" is more true than YOUR "read and heard".
Steve3007 wrote:False. Falsifying example: I once read that the Earth is 6000 years old. I don't believe that to be true despite the fact that it was me who read it and not somebody else.
This does not "falsify" my statement, but instead only "agrees" with it. For your belief that the Earth is 'not' 6000 years old is because of something you read and heard? ...right?

Again,
1. Those that believe in X do so because of something they've read and heard.
2. Those that don't believe in X do so because of something they've read and heard.

Example: you've read/heard that little green men called "martians" live on Mars, but because of something you've read/heard you don't believe it.

Which brings us back to the question "So then whose "read and heard" is more true? ...as we all seemingly believe OUR "read and heard" is more true than YOUR "read and heard".

RJG wrote:If one claims their "read and heard" is based on "such and such" (e.g. "solid science"), then this "such and such" is AGAIN, only just something that we've "read and heard". If our beliefs are based on just "read and heard"'s, then are they necessarily more true than another's?
Steve3007 wrote:How would you answer that question when it concerns things that you yourself have read and heard?

For example, from a previous conversation:
RJG wrote:
Again, "observations" are useless in determining truths. For example, I observe the world is flat. I see an end point/edge to the ocean. If a boat sails out there far enough it will fall off the edge. Etc etc. Moral of the story: "Observations" are not to be trusted when ascertaining truths. ...forget about them!

Why did you use the observation "the world is flat" as an illustration of your proposition that observations are not to be trusted?
I was just trying to make the point that "observing" the "world as flat" does not necessarily mean the world is flat. Hence "observations" are not trustworthy in ascertaining 'real' truths.

Steve3007 wrote:Have you read/heard various accounts proposing that the world is flat and read/heard other accounts proposing that it is (approximately) spherical, and decided that the former accounts are less trustworthy than the latter?
Yes. Bingo! My belief that the world is not-flat is ONLY based on what I've read and heard.

Steve3007 wrote:If so, how have you come to that conclusion (assuming you haven't personally traveled into Earth orbit or beyond)? What criteria did you use?
I don't conclude that the Earth is "really" non-flat, or that it even "really" does/does not exist. I only (personally) believe it is so because of what I've read/heard. Even traveling around the Earth doesn't prove anything. It would then just be a bunch more "observations". We can't derive 'real' truths from "observations". We can't get objectivity from subjectivity. That which we've "read and heard" (and "observed") is only that which we've "read and heard" (and "observed"), that's all, and not something that is necessarily 'real/true'. If we want to know what's real/true, we have to rely on something else, but certainly NOT our subjective observations! (...nor our "read and heard"'s)


Bottom-line: we can't get (derive) objectivity (truths) from what we've "read and heard" (i.e. subjective "observations"). What we've "read and heard" are just the somethings that we personally hold/believe as true, and not necessarily that which is really (objectively) true. -- if we want to know what's 'really' true, then we need something MORE than just our "read and heard"'s (and "observations").


*****
Those that claim Climate Change is true (or false) are only regurgitating what they've "read and heard". That's all. And no one's "regurgitation" is anymore valid (truer/realer) than another's.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: The Cure For Global Warming

Post by Steve3007 »

RJG wrote:Steve, firstly I don't think this discussion is necessarily about Climate Change, but more about why we personally hold something as true (i.e. subjective truths). In other words, we personally hold something as true because of something we've read and heard. So we may want to move our discussion (if it gets more involved in this direction) to another area. But here is fine for now.
I agree with this, except that I disagree with the ways in which you use the terms "subjective" and "objective" as we have already discussed in other topics. As I've said previously, you muddle the separate concepts of objectivity and logical certainty.

Climate Change is a specific example of a set of claims of proposed objective fact which we have to assess to try to work out whether we think they are more likely to be true or false. Two other examples I gave in my previous post were the objective claim that a country (a big object) called Australia exists and that a person called Henry VIII (another quite big object) once existed. I moved the discussion here because I suspected that if we kept it up someone would tell us to shut up and get back to talking about "Trump and Truth". As you've said, ideally it should be in a topic about the general subject of what it means to make claims of objective truth on the basis of subjective perceptions and how we assess those claims. But since Climate Change is the example being used, this will do for now.
This does not "falsify" my statement, but instead only "agrees" with it. For your belief that the Earth is 'not' 6000 years old is because of something you read and heard? ...right?
Your statement was as follows (bold added by me):
we all seemingly believe OUR "read and heard" is more true than YOUR "read and heard".
I gave an example of something that was MY "read and heard". I pointed out that I do not believe it to be true. i.e. the extent to which I believe it to be true is zero. Therefore I cannot believe it to be any more true than anything else. Therefore your statement quoted above is false.
Again,
1. Those that believe in X do so because of something they've read and heard.
2. Those that don't believe in X do so because of something they've read and heard.

Example: you've read/heard that little green men called "martians" live on Mars, but because of something you've read/heard you don't believe it.
Yes, we've already agreed that all of our information about objects that we've never personally experienced (Australia, Henry VIII etc) comes from things we've read/heard. You have pointed out here that I believe some of the things I've read/heard more than other things I've read/heard. Yes. So do you. I put it to you that this is why you used the example proposition "the Earth is flat". It's the same reason you're now using the example proposition "there are green men on Mars". You clearly don't practice what you preach . You believe that some things you read/hear are more plausible than others and they are not equally worthless as you've previously claimed them to be. That's why you're using them as examples.

What I'm trying to get from you is the criteria you use for making this decision about the competing claims that you've read/heard.
I was just trying to make the point that "observing" the "world as flat" does not necessarily mean the world is flat. Hence "observations" are not trustworthy in ascertaining 'real' truths.
If you were just making that point then you could have used an example like "the Earth is approximately spherical" or "Australia exists" or any number of others. But you deliberately chose an example of something that almost all of us do not believe to be true and thereby demonstrated that there is a rational basis for believing some empirical propositions more than others, and you yourself do so.
Yes. Bingo! My belief that the world is not-flat is ONLY based on what I've read and heard.
So, to go back to my eariler question: Why do you believe it? On what basis do you choose to instead believe what you've read/heard about the Earth being approximately spherical?
I don't conclude that the Earth is "really" non-flat, or that it even "really" does/does not exist. I only (personally) believe it is so because of what I've read/heard. Even traveling around the Earth doesn't prove anything. It would then just be a bunch more "observations".
It doesn't prove anything if you're using the term "prove" in the mathematical sense of making it logically certain. But what it does is to start to provide a method by which we all choose between competing claims of objective fact. i.e. it provides a method for testing competing empirical claims. And the word "prove" is often used a synonym for the word "test". So when people use the term "scientific proof" they are using the word in that sense, and not in the sense of a mathematical proof.
We can't derive 'real' truths from "observations". We can't get objectivity from subjectivity. That which we've "read and heard" (and "observed") is only that which we've "read and heard" (and "observed"), that's all, and not something that is necessarily 'real/true'. If we want to know what's real/true, we have to rely on something else, but certainly NOT our subjective observations! (...nor our "read and heard"'s)
This is where we disagree on the meanings of words again. As well as disagreeing about the word "objective" we also disagree about the term "real truth". For me, the term "real truth" is not a synonym for "logical certainty". I think there's another perfectly good word for logical certainties, or necessary truths.
Bottom-line: we can't get (derive) objectivity (truths) from what we've "read and heard" (i.e. subjective "observations").
I have already described several times the way in which we do just that. Again: We can't get logical certainty from what we've read, heard, seen, touched, tasted or smelled. But we can use those things to make objective propositions - propositions about objects. Objects are the entities that we propose to be the cause of our subjective sensations etc.
What we've "read and heard" are just the somethings that we personally hold/believe as true, and not necessarily that which is really (objectively) true. -- if we want to know what's 'really' true, then we need something MORE than just our "read and heard"'s (and "observations").
As previously mentioned, we disagree about the meanings of "objective" and "really".
Those that claim Climate Change is true (or false) are only regurgitating what they've "read and heard". That's all. And no one's "regurgitation" is anymore valid (truer/realer) than another's.
This is the statement demonstrating that your false proposition that there is no rational basis for choosing between competing empirical claims that we have read/heard has genuine negative consequences. Your conclusion appears to be that we should have no opinion, one way or the other, about climate change because each position is equally invalid. To be consistent, you would have to apply this principle not just to climate change but to absolutely everything except the Descartes-style logical certainties that you think you've found.

Luckily, you self-evidently don't do that. You do the same thing as everyone else, using approximately the same methods to differentiate between competing claims. You did exactly this when the subject of climate change was first introduced. You said some things about how the Earth's climate has changed a lot in the past, before humans existed. You've read/heard this, right?

As I've said, I'd be interested in hearing you explicitly examining the methods you use, starting with the method you've used to conclude that the read/heard objective proposition "the Earth is flat" is less believable than the read/heard objective proposition "the Earth is approximately spherical".

---

Anybody else reading this conversation: please, please don't dive in mistakenly assuming that this is a debate about whether the Earth is flat.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: The Cure For Global Warming

Post by Sculptor1 »

Theboombody wrote: January 14th, 2014, 3:07 pm I always wonder why people feel better technology is the solution to global warming when technology is causing global warming in the first place. I would think less technology would be better on the environment. Look at the Amish. Those guys are better environmentalists than anybody today, and they don't even try to be. They don't pile up huge mountains of litter or cause any pollution.

I think if we really care about the health of the planet, we'll forget gimmicks like carbon credits and solar power, and just be more like the Amish. True, we might live in less comfort and may not live as long, but we'll definitely be more likely to ensure the future health of the planet.
Do the Amish use contraception?
Since we are all going to scrap our cars and use less technology, we are going to have to have something to do to occupy our time. More sex is always a great idea, but more children would cause more problems.
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: The Cure For Global Warming

Post by RJG »

Steve3007 wrote:I disagree with the ways in which you use the terms "subjective" and "objective" as we have already discussed in other topics.
So yes, then you do understand that I hold "objectivity" to a much higher standard than you, ...right? ...when I say "objectivity" or "objective truth", I am meaning it in the philosophical sense:

"Objectivity is a philosophical concept of being true independently from individual subjectivity caused by perception, emotions, or imagination. A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject." --- Wikipedia

Steve3007 wrote:...ideally it should be in a topic about the general subject of what it means to make claims of objective truth on the basis of subjective perceptions
Herein lies our root problem. We CAN'T "make claims of objective truth" on the "basis of subjective perceptions". You believe we can get (derive) 'objectivity' from 'subjectivity', whereas, I don't. Again, we have different standards for "truth" (objective truth). ...true?
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: The Cure For Global Warming

Post by Steve3007 »

RJG wrote:So yes, then you do understand that I hold "objectivity" to a much higher standard than you, ...right? ...when I say "objectivity" or "objective truth", I am meaning it in the philosophical sense:...
I think we've long since established that you define objective propositions as propositions that are logically certain to be true; such that it would be self-contradictory to deny them (tautologies) whereas I consider them to be propositions about objects.
"...Objectivity is a philosophical concept of being true independently from individual subjectivity caused by perception, emotions, or imagination. A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject." --- Wikipedia
Yes, and the entity that is proposed to exist independently of any subjective perceptions is "object". We call a table an "object" and we proposed (without ever being able to be 100% certain) that it exists "objectively". By that we mean that we propose that it is the cause of all of the subjective sensations with which we associate it, such as the sensation "Albert saw a table" or the sensation "Beatrice smelled a table".
Herein lies our root problem. We CAN'T "make claims of objective truth" on the "basis of subjective perceptions".
As we know, I disagree. That is the only basis on which we can make claims about objects.
You believe we can get (derive) 'objectivity' from 'subjectivity', whereas, I don't. Again, we have different standards for "truth" (objective truth). ...true?
As discussed, we define "objectivity" differently. I relate it to objects. I think objects are ... see loads of earlier remarks.

---

So, are you going to have a go at answering the question I've asked you several times? What is it that causes you to believe the objective proposition "the Earth is approximately spherical" and not the objective propositions "the Earth is flat"? And why do you believe one more than the other when they're both just things you've read/heard/seen?
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: The Cure For Global Warming

Post by Steve3007 »

"...Objectivity is a philosophical concept of being true independently from individual subjectivity caused by perception, emotions, or imagination. A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject." --- Wikipedia
So, according to the above definition of a proposition with objective truth value, the following would be an example:

"There is a table in this room."

This is not a proposition directly about subjective perceptions. It is a proposition about the proposed cause of a potentially indefinitely large set of subjective propositions. That proposed cause is the entity that we refer to as an "object". It is inherent in the properties of this concept we call "object" that it exists (as the Wikipedia article says):

"independently from individual subjectivity."

i.e. we are proposing that it's not just a table of an individual mind. It's a thing that (we propose) can cause an arbitrarily large number of perceptions in an arbitrarily large number of suitably situated minds.

---

I think Betrand Russell's classic book "The Problems of Philosophy" deals very well with the subject we've been discussing here, of the way in which objects, and propositions about them, relate to what he refers to as "sense-data". He also uses a table as an example of an object:

http://selfpace.uconn.edu/class/percep/ ... osophy.pdf
Betrand Russell wrote:I bought my table from the former occupant of my room; I could not buy his sense-data, which died when he went away, but I could and did buy the confident expectation of more or less similar sense-data. Thus it is the fact that different people have similar sense-data, and that one person in a given place at different times has similar sense-data, which makes us suppose that over and above the sense-data there is a permanent public object which underlies or causes the sense-data of various people at various times
It is this "public object" about which objective propositions are made.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: The Cure For Global Warming

Post by Sculptor1 »

The Object/Subject myth.

Since we only have subjective impressions we can only derive objective statements by the act of comparison with other subjects' impressions on areas where they agree.
As such we can never really get to the pure object as described by the Wiki quote since there is not place from which humans are able to completely distance themselves from their own biases.

Biases are not to be simply rejected, they form the entire basis of the human point of view. Nor can they be fully rejected. Where would you stand to avoid your own experience and learning about the world.

We are left with tautologies which only reflect definitions or analytic truths which are always self referral and not really about the world of impressions at all. For example 1+1=2, therefore 2-1=1. This is true but it is an irrelevance to call it objective; meaningless.

In the end the only thing that "objective" can mean is that such statements can comply with a set of pre-agreed criteria made by your own language community.

Ten people taste the same lemon. 6 say it has average sourness, 2 say it is more, 2 say it is less.
A scientist comes along with his objective machine and declares the lemon to have a sourness factor of 23.65, thus eliminating the personal biases of the ten people.
So what does 23.65 mean? basically nothing, though it is definitely "objective".

But you might as well have chosen one of the people at random and declared him the authority on lemon sourness.

I declare that in this case, at least the subjective impressions mean more than the sourness machine with its objective results.
And like ALL objective statements, if they can be removed from human bias, then they can only do this by compliance with endemic assumptions of the community. The bias still exists here, but at the level of society and historical contingency.

As far as GW is concerned there is no really objective measure of earth's temperature. It all depends on how hot or cold you would prefer the earth to be for optimal human life - usually what's the best temperature where you happen to live.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Science”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021