Detached9

How do you determine if something is objectively true or not? Am I wrong when I think that even if 99% of people agree that X is true, X might not be objectively true?

Perhaps I'm mistaken when I don't think an objective truth depends on how many people agree/disagree with it?

Is something subjectively true unless shown to be objectively true by some means? For instance, if I place an object directly in front of someone, their perception of the object may be subjective, but if they walk forward, they will still bump into the object, which means the object's existence is objective, but the perception of the object is subjective.

Am I on the right track?

[ April 11, 2002: Message edited by: Detached9 ]</p>

Bill

This is correct. The classic quote is this (updated for a modern population total): "If six billion people believe a lie, it is still a lie."

Another cogent thought comes to us from the science fiction author Phillip K. Dick: The difficulty in philosophical terms is that human beings can never know the total of objective truth which surrounds us (as "reality"). Instead, humans perceive some approximation of "reality" (objective truth). We can assign probabilities to various sorts of truth statements based upon various sorts of control factors (such as whether or not the observer is on drugs and whether or not the observer has a history of providing reliable observations). And while most people can discern that they have experienced an illusion most of the time, there is really no good way to assure ourselves that even our own observations are totally (100%) reliable in all circumstances.

But does the fact that humans have an extremely limited ability to perceive "reality" mean that "reality" does not actually exist? It is my personal philosophical position that this question must be answered in the negative: "reality" exists whether or not any human perceives and/or correctly interprets the nature of "reality." This is a theme and variation on the old connundrum: Science would instruct us that yes, the tree makes a sound even if nobody hears it. Thus, "reality" exists in the total absence of human perception.

== Bill

[ April 11, 2002: Message edited by: Bill ]</p>

Missophist

but then again, does sound really exist without an ear there to hear it? Or do only molecular vibrations exist?

crocodile deathroll

"99% of (or most probably 100%) cavemen then may well believe the earth is flat", but then again how can I be sure that the statement I just made is objectively true?

dostf

Detached9:

The description you gave necessarily is dependent on the 5 senses we possess. They are useful to identify and classify our "reality" if you like. But, they are not "objective" in any sense, even from a physiological standpoint. (many animals have "better" sense perception. Truth "objective, subjective or otherwise is not "out there". Human being itself is the key.

Bill:

Science would instruct us that yes, the tree makes a sound even if nobody hears it. Thus, "reality" exists in the total absence of human perception.[QUOTE] [Bill]

Science is an expression of human study. Without human there is no science to verify your assertion.

Detached9

... and this only leads me back to, how would you determine if something is objectively true or not? Could something we consider to be subjectively true actually be objectively true? Perhaps my perception of object X is actually what the object is, but someone else's perception of object X is not what the object actually is. How would I ever prove this?

Are objective and subjective truths even falsifiable? I really don't understand. How do you prove something is subjectively true or objectively true? Is something subjectively true in the absense of evidence for something being objectively true? By prove, I don't mean absolutely prove, by the way.

[ April 11, 2002: Message edited by: Detached9 ]</p>

Detached9

I'm rather confused on subjectivity, objectivity, relativism and intersubjectivism. Does anyone know of a book that predominately covers these fields?

dostf

detached 9:

Well i suppose you might ask if "objective truth" exists to begin with before you try to contrast it with subjective truth. From your posts i would take it you do. Perhaps you have your own ideas on what subjective and objective truth might be. Often you will find a "debate of word meanings" comes about at this point. There are other forums I have read that go into some detail that might relate to your question.(in philosophy forum)

As for books i think others might give you better suggestions than i could.

pug846

Detached said:

What you are looking for doesn’t exist; there is no litmus test that you run a proposition like ‘The chair is red’ through and if it comes out red, it’s false and if it is green, it’s true. All you can do is weigh the evidence of a certain proposition being true or not and at some point it is so probable that it is true, that we consider it and talk about the proposition being true.

There is no such thing as ‘subjectively true.’ (May Kierkegaard rest in peace.) All subjectively true means is ‘opinion.’

And yes, what we consider to be true could in fact be wrong. It has happened in the past and I’m sure it will happen in the future. What you are hung up on is certainty. I have no problem asserting that X is true all the while knowing I could be wrong.

Evidence, argumentation, etc. Again, you can’t prove it 100%, but so what?

Dostf said:

Are you denying that there is an objective truth?

I think people confuse whether or not we can be absolutely sure that any proposition is true with we can’t be sure that any proposition is true therefore there is no ‘truth.’ (Which is fallacious and self defeating anyhoo.)

Now you will excuse me while I go read Either/Or and Beyond Good and Evil and then sacrifice three goats in lieu of my sins in this post.

edited bc my spelling is beyond shitty and crappy.

edited again because I wans't as clear as I wanted to be. I've seriously edited this post 7 times. I think we can all be certain that I'm an idiot. So there is one 'objective truth' for you.

[ April 11, 2002: Message edited by: pug846 ]</p>

Tom Piper

pug846,

So is it a consequence of your view (in your last post) that you may not understand a word I am saying in this post because you can't be certain that I am using these words in ways that are completely unlike the way you use them

Tom