Good one!
Objective morality and the Necessity of God
- Marvin_Edwards
- Posts: 1106
- Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: William James
- Contact:
-
- Posts: 608
- Joined: November 28th, 2020, 6:55 am
Re: Objective morality and the Necessity of God
"Unbiased observers". Lol.Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑January 4th, 2021, 1:34 pmCorrect. An objective fact is one that can be observed in empirical reality and confirmed by multiple unbiased observers. A subjective "fact" is an unconfirmed personal opinion.
Subjectively, Donald Trump believes he won. Objectively, he didn't.
You're favoritizning the consensus theory of truth.
So at some point in history, because of this favoritizing, you'd boldly declare that the Sun revolves around the Earth and burn at the stake anyone who'd think differently.
-
- Posts: 608
- Joined: November 28th, 2020, 6:55 am
Re: Objective morality and the Necessity of God
Which just goes to show that the discourse about truth is actually about power.
He who can decide what another person is supposed to consider "true" is the one who has more power.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Objective morality and the Necessity of God
Marvin_Edwards wrote:An objective fact is one that can be observed in empirical reality and confirmed by multiple unbiased observers.
I disagree that he's describing a consensus theory of truth there. He seems to me to be describing an experimental reproducibility theory of truth, which is a different thing.baker wrote:You're favoritizning the consensus theory of truth.
-
- Posts: 608
- Joined: November 28th, 2020, 6:55 am
Re: Objective morality and the Necessity of God
Ptolemaists observed the skies and repeatedly came to the conclusion that the Sun revolves around the Earth. They believed themselves to be unbiased.Steve3007 wrote: ↑January 5th, 2021, 7:24 amMarvin_Edwards wrote:An objective fact is one that can be observed in empirical reality and confirmed by multiple unbiased observers.I disagree that he's describing a consensus theory of truth there. He seems to me to be describing an experimental reproducibility theory of truth, which is a different thing.baker wrote:You're favoritizning the consensus theory of truth.
Experimental reproducibility is still about consensus.
-
- Posts: 608
- Joined: November 28th, 2020, 6:55 am
Re: Objective morality and the Necessity of God
I'd love to see you make that point to a psychologist/psychiatrist. Esp. as a patient or someone who was sent in for evaluation for the purposes of work.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 4th, 2021, 1:45 pmIt's more that there's no justification for it ontologically. It's not a fact. It can be a preference that someone has, of course.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Objective morality and the Necessity of God
baker wrote:Ptolemaists observed the skies and repeatedly came to the conclusion that the Sun revolves around the Earth. They believed themselves to be unbiased.
Experimental reproducibility is still about consensus.
Consensus, in this context, amounts to: "that which most people believe is the truth". Experimental reproducibility is not just about what most people believe. When reviewing the results of some experiment or other, the reviewer doesn't simply look at all of the results of all of the experiments and declare that the largest single group has stumbled on the correct result. But when we dig deeper and deeper into experimental results, until we get to the point where we're both looking directly at the same thing, if we then still disagree as to whether our different sensations are caused by the same ontological entity, I think that's when consensus starts to play a part. But, at that base level, it's not just consensus between different people. It's also consensus between our own different senses and consensus between what we're currently sensing and what we remember sensing previously.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Objective morality and the Necessity of God
baker wrote:Ptolemaists observed the skies and repeatedly came to the conclusion that the Sun revolves around the Earth. They believed themselves to be unbiased.
Since this particular subject has been raised: 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"?
If you started by answering something like "the Earth can be said to revolve around the Sun if the Sun stays in one place and the Earth moves" then you'd have to start getting into what it means to say "the Sun stays in one place". In one place relative to what? The Earth?
- Marvin_Edwards
- Posts: 1106
- Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: William James
- Contact:
Re: Objective morality and the Necessity of God
So, objective observation of empirical reality does not always result in a true theory as to what is actually going on. However, improvements in our tools for objective observation, like the telescope, are responsible for better, more accurate descriptions of objective reality.
And the people in Georgia, from both political parties, who watched each other count each vote, came to a better description of the truth than did those who spun rumors and lies.
The consensus of the counters was a more accurate description of the truth, because they objectively observed what happened. The consensus of the fantasy weavers and those who listened to them lacked empirical observation of reality.
So, 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.
And, we are able to judge the objectivity of two different consensuses (plural?) if we know their tools and methods.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Objective morality and the Necessity of God
I'd be happy to explain it to anyone you'd like me to explain it to.baker wrote: ↑January 5th, 2021, 7:32 amI'd love to see you make that point to a psychologist/psychiatrist. Esp. as a patient or someone who was sent in for evaluation for the purposes of work.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 4th, 2021, 1:45 pmIt's more that there's no justification for it ontologically. It's not a fact. It can be a preference that someone has, of course.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8271
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Objective morality and the Necessity of God
Marvin_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?
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Posts: 608
- Joined: November 28th, 2020, 6:55 am
Re: Objective morality and the Necessity of God
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.Steve3007 wrote: ↑January 5th, 2021, 7:46 ambaker wrote:Ptolemaists observed the skies and repeatedly came to the conclusion that the Sun revolves around the Earth. They believed themselves to be unbiased.
Experimental reproducibility is still about consensus.
Consensus, in this context, amounts to: "that which most people believe is the truth". Experimental reproducibility is not just about what most people believe. When reviewing the results of some experiment or other, the reviewer doesn't simply look at all of the results of all of the experiments and declare that the largest single group has stumbled on the correct result. But when we dig deeper and deeper into experimental results, until we get to the point where we're both looking directly at the same thing, if we then still disagree as to whether our different sensations are caused by the same ontological entity, I think that's when consensus starts to play a part. But, at that base level, it's not just consensus between different people. It's also consensus between our own different senses and consensus between what we're currently sensing and what we remember sensing previously.
Now how do you think that came to be?
-
- Posts: 608
- Joined: November 28th, 2020, 6:55 am
Re: Objective morality and the Necessity of God
Like clarified elsewhere:Steve3007 wrote: ↑January 5th, 2021, 7:56 amSince this particular subject has been raised: 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"?
If you started by answering something like "the Earth can be said to revolve around the Sun if the Sun stays in one place and the Earth moves" then you'd have to start getting into what it means to say "the Sun stays in one place". In one place relative to what? The Earth?
The discussion about whether the Sun revolves around the Earth or the other way around is specifically about Copernican heliocentrism in contrast with the Ptolemaic model. This distinction has a clear and narrow application.
-
- Posts: 608
- Joined: November 28th, 2020, 6:55 am
Re: Objective morality and the Necessity of God
Anything to entertain yourself, right.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 5th, 2021, 10:42 amI'd be happy to explain it to anyone you'd like me to explain it to.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14997
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Objective morality and the Necessity of God
Balanced observers, rather than objective. People who have worked in elections understand exactly how outrageous Trump's claims of election fraud are. During the count, you have observers from all parties checking everything like hawks. If you have ever had someone from a party hovering over your shoulder as you count, you will know it is impossible to cheat without ridiculous levels of collusion. I say "ridiculous" because it would require agreement of all party observers to cheat to help one party. Each keeps the other in check - and, believe me, those observers are *intense*!baker wrote: ↑January 5th, 2021, 6:58 am"Unbiased observers". Lol.Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑January 4th, 2021, 1:34 pmCorrect. An objective fact is one that can be observed in empirical reality and confirmed by multiple unbiased observers. A subjective "fact" is an unconfirmed personal opinion.
Subjectively, Donald Trump believes he won. Objectively, he didn't.
Trumpy was lining this game up since May, when he saw his numbers tanking due to the many deaths caused by his bungled COVID response. He immediately started claiming that the Democrats were engaging in mass election fraud - six months before the election! That people have bought his lies makes clear to me that humans are doomed.
Something better than us will replace us. Post-humans will surely come closer to objectivity than us, and they will be more able to admit the limitations of their assessments than determinedly proud humans.
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