Keith Russell

Hugo said, quoting Clark:
"We can admit the existence of stimuli... But the principles that collect those stimuli into color classes can only be found in the innards of visual nervous systems."

Hugo continued:
"It really isn't that difficult. Once again you confuse the recognition of limitations with an epistemic declaration of certainty. Go figure."

Keith: Well, Hugo, are you certain that you recognize these limitations--

--or aren't you?

Keith.

Hugo Holbling

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Now you're making a category error. Let's see what LW had to say about this:

Hence my question which you avoided: do you propose making certainty a methodological constraint? If so, you'll have to write a whole new chapter in the philosophy of science, in the meantime explaining to the foolish scientists that their epistemology is self-refuting. Best of luck!

Since you're so enamoured of certainty i've no doubt you've read LW and already understand how disingenuous your argument is.

Keith Russell

Hugo, quoting Gewissheit:
"Knowledge" and "certainty" belong to different categories... What interests us is not being sure but knowledge. That is, we are interested in the fact that about certain empirical propositions no doubt can exist if making judgements is to be possible at all."

Gosh, Hugo, I guess my argument is disingenuous--but only if you believe that making claims (or quoting claims made by others, such as Gewissheit) counts as evidence.

Keith.

Hugo Holbling

Nice move, Keith. Don't bother answering my question - just keep on dodging.

Ah well, i'm throwing in the towel anyway. There's no getting through to cultists, i guess. Like Primal, you're more than welcome to declare victory, as i've had enough.

I hereby announce the death of subjectivism, it having been shown to be self-refuting by clear and unassailable argument.

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Primal

1) You are confusing "if" scenerios with "if and only if". I am not saying the specific subjectivist is verbatim saying that "subjectivism is true". I am saying in principle they could never say that in principle without self-refutation. I.E. any attamept to establish subjectivism falls flat on its face.

Also by adhering to subjectivism, arguing for it, and using the position as a basis to reject further claims the subjectivist is implicitly saying their statement is true.

Also keep in mind that in logic a claim must be proven before accepted. If subjectivism is unproven but then accepts subjectivism such a person is being illogical.

2) The denial of how certain logical principles are universal and hence objective, meaning true or established whether someone agrees with them or not, as the law of noncontradiction is fundementally illogical. I have adressed this on the second page.


This viewpoint advocated on logic is presupposing constructivism. i.e. you are assuming before hand that there are different systems of logic and all are equally valid.

Again like I said with Hugo, mere denial of what I claim does not amount to a refutation. Just repeating one's-self, like a creationist "I just don't believe it" or "I just don't see how evolution was proven and creationism was not." Is a weak argument, because such a statement can be based on subborness or ignorance instead of evidence.

[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: Primal ]</p>

Keith Russell

Hugo, I answered your question--but you did not answer mine. I asked you if you were certain that these 'limitations' (your word) exist.

You did not answer that question, but instead offered the following claim:
"Knowledge" and "certainty" belong to different categories.

Do you really think that hould I believe this, just because Gewissheit said it?

Hugo, quoting:
"What interests us is not being sure but knowledge."
"That is, we are interested in the fact that about certain empirical propositions no doubt can exist if making judgements is to be possible at all."

Gewissheit contradicts himself--or did you not notice that?

He says that "What interests us is not being sure but knowledge", and yet he says that "we are interested in the fact--" (!) "--that about certain empirical propositions no doubt can exist if making judgments is to be possible at all.'

"...we are interested in"..."the fact" (!) "that"..."no doubt can exist'..."

Sure sounds like he's interested in certainty, to me.

Keith.

[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: Keith Russell ]</p>

Primal

Hugo: Again you have failed to directly confront a single one of my arguments.

But no matter I will now go more into why my definition is better.

1) First off it should be obvious that the term "subjectivist" cannot encompass objectivist philosophies like Marxism, Ayn Rand Objectivism, Naturalism, Realism and Materialism. Your definition does just that, basically you are saying "subjectivists believe knowledge is in the mind." Really? So do all the above objectivist philosophies. Name me 1 major objectivist who has honestly said, or even implied, that knowledge physically existed outside the mind. If you cannot, I doubt you can even name a philosopher at all who has said this, your definition of subjectivism is obviously too vague because it encompasses EVERY PHILOSOPHY known to man.


2) The term subjective in this sense is supposed to mean the opposite of the term objective. The term subjective though is rarely defined clearly, usually meaning something like

found here:http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/s/subjecti.htm

Which sounds much like perceptionism and is a bad definition as it is somewhat compatible with naive realism, an objectivist philosophy.

A more common definition is found here:

<a href="http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=subjectivism" target="_blank">http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=subjectivism</a>

Notice though that this definition is in many ways circular. The term subjective is here

<a href="http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=subjective" target="_blank">http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=subjective</a>

Neither definition has told us very much. This changes though when one looks up the words objectivity,

<a href="http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/o/objectiv.htm" target="_blank">http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/o/objectiv.htm</a>

This means that objectivity entails the truth is independent of wishes and desires, that mean de facto that subjectivity must reject this and say that the truth is dependent on wishes and desires.

This means for the objectivist truth values are dtermined by things besides personal wishes, these standards can be that of logic and/or observation. Objectivism is thus a subspecies of the philosophical school known as foundationalism-one which maintains that certain fundamental true axioms lead one through their application to what we call truth or higher degrees of truth. In this viewpoint is is the objective that is the ultimate authority in matters of truth, the objective being standards like logic,reason,axioms,sensation and other epistemic standards that over-ride subjective wishes and desires.

Subjectivism, given that objectivism has been defined must maintain the opposite. Subjectivism must maintain that truth is a matter of subjective wishes and desires, one's that do not necessarily correspond to an external world, assuming one exists;which the subjectivist cannot do and remain consistent for the idea of an external world is objectivist, and to maintain such a world exists despite wishes to the contrary and that wishes could not change thuis situation (definition of external world) is to assume some sort of objective knowledge. Subjectivism thus maintains that standards of truth are whimsical consequences of wishes and desires, with the subject being the ultimate authority in such matters. Truth is thus limited completely to the self, to the subject in question. Subjectivism hence is a subspecies of constructivism, a school that sees all "axioms" or standards of truth as equally "true" and more or less, a reflection of our desires,wishes,biases and prejudices.

3) Now lets apply these definitions and descriptions to different schools of thought. Does my definition of objectivism apply to naturalism,Objectivism,realism,marxism, and materialism? Sure does.

Does it apply to subjectivist philosophies like postmodernism,structuralism,solipsism and idealism? Nope.

Does my definition of subjectivism adequately describe the above subjectivist philosophies? Well enough. (Why well enough? Because subjectivists are not likely to agree on even the basics verbatim via their view of knowledge sort of like different sects of monotheism, all they seem to agree on is that truth cannot be objective.)

Does my definition of subjectivism apply to the above objectivist philosophies? Not at all.


Hence I have given reasons for my definition of subjectivism and objectivism. I have shown how they better fit and destinguish what are commonly recognized as objectivist and subjectivist philosophies. I have shown what over-all schools of thought each fits under. My definitions are all compatible with what subjectivists oft say and with common/philosophical ones as well.

Hugo by contrast has not even attempted this. Hugo has just hid behind proof surrogates and some claimed "authority" on the matter. Hugo's definition applies just as easily to objectivist philosophies as it does subjectivist philosophies, it fits both because it fails to destinguish between both. Hugo's arguments for his definition of subjectivism are thus circular whereas mine are based on deduction and application.

Hugo in essence needs to check for a tail as well as for long ears and quite hiding behind his message board equivailent of high school chums (as if this were a popularity contest, which in Hugo's mind it probably is) and confront my arguments directly showing how subjectivism so defined is compatible with logic via a proper refutation of my arguments based on logic and evidence.

[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: Primal ]

[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: Primal ]</p>

Keith Russell

Primal:

Very well said, and--

--I agree!

Keith.

ex-xian

Hello, all

I posting this at work, so I haven't had time to read the entire thread. I'm half-way through a class on epistimology, so I'm very interested in this topic right now. Has the role that language plays in theories of knowledge been discussed. From my reading, it seems that language is one of the most important aspects of forming a workable epistimology.

Also, my chosen term paper topic is to attempt to construct and defend an absolutist/non-relativist , non foundational epistimology. Any ideas on this would be appreciated. I guess you could email them, or just bring them up here.

Anyway, like I said, I haven't had time to read the entire thread, so if the language issue has been raised please excuse me. But if it hasn't, it would be helpful to the discussion, IMHO.

John Page

Primal:

I still don't see anything anywhere near a refutation of subjectivism. Two observers using a different viewpoint will report different experiences (say, the pitch of a train noise while it travels at speed). There is no absolute frequency, only relative to the frame of reference of the observer. Through wider, and thus more objective, experience under varied/contolled conditions we can explore how such knowledge is acquired and reported.

I would concede that an absolutely subjective experience must be pure conjecture and meaningless in epistomological terms. On the other hand I would concede that absolutely objective experience is unobtainable unless one is omniscient. Accordingly, it seems to me that epistomology merely tries to characterize the degree of objectivity/subjectivity of our knowledge of how we come to know things.

As to the statement that "Subjectivism thus maintains that standards of truth are whimsical consequences of wishes and desires", I think you will find that truth is a product of experience and the mind's processing of that experience. Truth, therefore, is somewhat subjective and even the logic that you claim can be used to refute subjectivism is itself subject to axioms of convention. Consider, if the truth was objective there could be no lies.

I would be interested if, instead of suggesting you have refuted subjectivism, you offered absolute proof positive regarding objectivism. To be serious, such proof would need to show an scientific/empirical basis for determining the truth regarding all things in the same way that cognitive science can show that our experience is subjective.

Cheers, John