Rather dire assessment, eh? But, no, it's not really my theory, but rather my understanding of the notion of scientific objectivity. Science is always expanding the envelope of useful knowledge by exploration and experimentation. Hypotheses that appear to produce reliable predictions of empirical phenomena are given the status of "fact" until a better hypothesis comes along with better and more consistent predictions of events. The hypothesis is subjective until it is demonstrated in objective reality. Then the hypothesis is treated as an objective truth about the nature of things.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑January 5th, 2021, 11:47 amMarvin_Edwards wrote: ↑January 5th, 2021, 8:24 am objective observation by unbiased observers (or by two biases that cross-checked each other) is still the better guide to what is true and real than subjective opinions.
Maybe ... except that there is no such thing, in practice, as an unbiased human observer. Your theory rather collapses at this point, doesn't it?
Objective morality and the Necessity of God
- Marvin_Edwards
- Posts: 1106
- Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: William James
- Contact:
Re: Objective morality and the Necessity of God
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Objective morality and the Necessity of God
The underlying reason is ambiguity. The two statements "The Earth goes around the Sun" and "The Sun goes around the Earth" can both be held to be either true or false, given the same set of observational evidence, because neither statement is written sufficiently precisely in terms of what is actually observed, so both are ambiguous. That's why I asked:baker wrote:The Copernicans and the Ptolemaists were observing the same skies, they had the same raw data, they even had the same tools for observation. Yet they interpreted the data differently and developed different models of the movement of celestial bodies.
Now how do you think that came to be?
The Sun rises in the east, moves across the sky and sets in the west. Clearly it moves relative to the Earth. So, in a reference frame that is fixed relative to the Earth the Sun goes around the Earth. Similarly, in a reference frame that is fixed relative to the Sun the Earth goes around the Sun. In an inertial (non-accelerating) reference frame they both orbit their common centre of mass. That common centre of mass is not fixed relative to either the Earth or the Sun. So it could also (ambiguously) be said that "The Earth and the Sun orbit each other".Steve3007 wrote:In terms of things that can be sensed/observed/measured what does it mean to say "the Sun revolves around the Earth"? In those terms, how does that differ from saying "the Earth revolves around the Sun"?
- Papus79
- Posts: 1800
- Joined: February 19th, 2017, 6:59 pm
Re: Objective morality and the Necessity of God
I still don't know what God has to do with that, just that I think it was a great setup for confusing what it is we're discussing (awesome if this was really meant to be a social games thread, not as useful if it was a sincere question).
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8380
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Objective morality and the Necessity of God
Exactly. Humans can attempt being unbiased, but only approach it distantly, and never consistently. Humans see what they see, and they judge it. This judgement is called bias, and is intrinsic to human, er, operation.
"Who cares, wins"
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8380
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Objective morality and the Necessity of God
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑January 5th, 2021, 11:47 am Maybe ... except that there is no such thing, in practice, as an unbiased human observer. Your theory rather collapses at this point, doesn't it?
Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑January 5th, 2021, 5:32 pm Hypotheses that appear to produce reliable predictions of empirical phenomena are given the status of "fact" until a better hypothesis comes along with better and more consistent predictions of events. The hypothesis is subjective until it is demonstrated in objective reality. Then the hypothesis is treated as an objective truth about the nature of things.
Again, this all sounds great, until we remember that no hypothesis has ever, in the history of humanity, been "demonstrated in objective reality".
"Who cares, wins"
- Marvin_Edwards
- Posts: 1106
- Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: William James
- Contact:
Re: Objective morality and the Necessity of God
Of course they have, tons of them. Even some very astounding hypotheses, like time-dilation, have been demonstrated. Two atomic clocks, one on the ground, the other in a flying plane, and one clock ran faster than the other. (Don't ask me which).Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑January 6th, 2021, 1:34 pmPattern-chaser wrote: ↑January 5th, 2021, 11:47 am Maybe ... except that there is no such thing, in practice, as an unbiased human observer. Your theory rather collapses at this point, doesn't it?Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑January 5th, 2021, 5:32 pm Hypotheses that appear to produce reliable predictions of empirical phenomena are given the status of "fact" until a better hypothesis comes along with better and more consistent predictions of events. The hypothesis is subjective until it is demonstrated in objective reality. Then the hypothesis is treated as an objective truth about the nature of things.
Again, this all sounds great, until we remember that no hypothesis has ever, in the history of humanity, been "demonstrated in objective reality".
-
- Posts: 624
- Joined: November 28th, 2020, 6:55 am
Re: Objective morality and the Necessity of God
The historical dispute has been about the model of the movement of celestial bodies relative to eachother. The reference frame is the Universe.Steve3007 wrote: ↑January 6th, 2021, 8:32 am The underlying reason is ambiguity. The two statements "The Earth goes around the Sun" and "The Sun goes around the Earth" can both be held to be either true or false, given the same set of observational evidence, because neither statement is written sufficiently precisely in terms of what is actually observed, so both are ambiguous. That's why I asked:
The Sun rises in the east, moves across the sky and sets in the west. Clearly it moves relative to the Earth. So, in a reference frame that is fixed relative to the Earth the Sun goes around the Earth. Similarly, in a reference frame that is fixed relative to the Sun the Earth goes around the Sun. In an inertial (non-accelerating) reference frame they both orbit their common centre of mass. That common centre of mass is not fixed relative to either the Earth or the Sun. So it could also (ambiguously) be said that "The Earth and the Sun orbit each other".Steve3007 wrote:In terms of things that can be sensed/observed/measured what does it mean to say "the Sun revolves around the Earth"? In those terms, how does that differ from saying "the Earth revolves around the Sun"?
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Objective morality and the Necessity of God
Yes, and one of the defining characteristics of a model is that it is a simplification; it describes and predicts some, but not all, of the features of reality. Different models of the same reality for different purposes.baker wrote:The historical dispute has been about the model of the movement of celestial bodies relative to each other.
Is it? So what is the velocity of the Earth relative to the Universe? The term "the fixed stars" has often also been used in the past to denote a universal reference frame. But, of course, the stars aren't fixed. They're all moving relative to each other and to the Sun and Earth. As I said, one possible reference frame to choose would be a non-accelerating one. As I said, in that reference frame the Earth and Sun are in mutual orbit.The reference frame is the Universe.
-
- Posts: 624
- Joined: November 28th, 2020, 6:55 am
Re: Objective morality and the Necessity of God
For the historical dispute between heliocentrism vs. geocentrism, yes.
Anyway, to try to remotely get back on topic ... We were talking about the various theories of truth and how they apply to the problem of objective morality and the necessity of God ...
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Objective morality and the Necessity of God
I disagree. I think the historical dispute existed precisely because the reference frame was not agreed on and clearly specified, and it also existed for various psychological reasons tied to the human tendency to want to regard ourselves as being central to things. Clearly the Ptolemaic model uses the surface of the Earth as the reference frame. Given that we're all more or less stationary in that reference frame, that's fairly sensible for a lot of purposes, so long as we remember that other purposes exist and other models are available.baker wrote:For the historical dispute between heliocentrism vs. geocentrism, yes.
Fair enough. I realise I'd drifted away from that OP a bit. It happens.Anyway, to try to remotely get back on topic ... We were talking about the various theories of truth and how they apply to the problem of objective morality and the necessity of God ...
Obviously I disagree with the OP writer that objective morality exists and he doesn't seem to make an argument for it. He just asserts it and hasn't replied to my earlier comments, so not much more to say on that. My own view about what constitutes objective truth and how we discover it was most recently summarized here:
viewtopic.php?p=375972#p375972
-
- Posts: 624
- Joined: November 28th, 2020, 6:55 am
Re: Objective morality and the Necessity of God
Actually, I think this is precisely what a believer in objective morality and a necessary existence of God does and must do: he merely asserts it, and he must merely assert it. Because anything beyond that, providing any kind of reasoning or arguments beyond mere assertion would take away from the objectivity of what is being asserted.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8380
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Objective morality and the Necessity of God
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑January 6th, 2021, 1:34 pm Again, this all sounds great, until we remember that no hypothesis has ever, in the history of humanity, been "demonstrated in objective reality".
Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑January 6th, 2021, 4:20 pm Of course they have, tons of them. Even some very astounding hypotheses, like time-dilation, have been demonstrated. Two atomic clocks, one on the ground, the other in a flying plane, and one clock ran faster than the other. (Don't ask me which).
You misunderstand. I refer to Objective reality: what actually is, irrespective of our beliefs, thoughts or opinions; you are describing actions taken within apparent reality. If that's the route you wish to follow, then you need to demonstrate that Objective reality and apparent reality are the same thing. This cannot be done. Your arguments keep running into contradictions, it seems.
"Who cares, wins"
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8380
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Objective morality and the Necessity of God
I'm sorry, this argument doesn't hold water. Beyond assertion, the believer in objective morality can refer to empirical evidence that things are as he believes they are. If there is morality out there, in the universe, then surely it can be observed? And if it can be observed, it can be referred to by objective-moralists, to demonstrate the correctness of their views. So where is all that morality, out there in the universe?baker wrote: ↑January 7th, 2021, 8:24 amActually, I think this is precisely what a believer in objective morality and a necessary existence of God does and must do: he merely asserts it, and he must merely assert it. Because anything beyond that, providing any kind of reasoning or arguments beyond mere assertion would take away from the objectivity of what is being asserted.
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Posts: 624
- Joined: November 28th, 2020, 6:55 am
Re: Objective morality and the Necessity of God
He can, but he doesn't have to. It even hurts his case to do so.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑January 7th, 2021, 9:12 amI'm sorry, this argument doesn't hold water. Beyond assertion, the believer in objective morality can refer to empirical evidence that things are as he believes they are.
The moment one ventures into empirical evidence and analytical argument is the moment one has left objectivity.
A consequent moral objectivist does not "demonstrate the correctness of their views". Anyone who tries to "demonstrate the correctness of their views" is not a moral objectivist.If there is morality out there, in the universe, then surely it can be observed? And if it can be observed, it can be referred to by objective-moralists, to demonstrate the correctness of their views.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8380
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Objective morality and the Necessity of God
baker wrote: ↑January 7th, 2021, 9:24 amHe can, but he doesn't have to. It even hurts his case to do so.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑January 7th, 2021, 9:12 amI'm sorry, this argument doesn't hold water. Beyond assertion, the believer in objective morality can refer to empirical evidence that things are as he believes they are.
The moment one ventures into empirical evidence and analytical argument is the moment one has left objectivity.
I think the time has come for you to say clearly what you mean by "objective" and/or "objectivity"? Thanks.
"Who cares, wins"
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
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
by Chet Shupe
March 2023