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.Sculptor1 wrote: ↑May 16th, 2019, 4:17 pmIt 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'.
"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.