Synaesthesia

John Page,
I can't pretend to 'refute' subjectivism because that's impossible. I can however point out a reason why I think that it's not the most effective way of thinking about knowledge.

Relativity is actually a kind of ironic example to choose. According to it, each observer gets very different sensory information relative to their position and velocity. However, the point of relativity is that it can describe an objective and parsimonious system independent of observers which can account for the infinite diversity of observation.

In other words it is the objectivity of relativity that is fundamental to comprehending the differences in our observations. The empiricist conception of heuristic systems of logicall unrelated and 'given' sense-data simply cannot account for the theory.

Realism, on the other hand, is deeply cosonant with the success of theoretical induction.

John Page

Syn:

Relativity = accepting that we might be "wrong" from the perspective of another == subjectivity.

Forgive my terse reply but it seems to me that you support the proposition that the human condition is prevailed upon by a subjective point of view.

I'm unclear on what you mean. Which theory do you think cannot be accounted for - subjectivism or ojectivisim?

Cheers, John

[ October 13, 2002: Message edited by: John Page ]</p>

Keith Russell

Greetings:

The train whistle seems to me to be a rather interesting argument in favour of subjectivism.

Yes, the frequency of the whistle is different for a person on the moving train, as opposed to a person standing beside the tracks as the train passes, but the frequency of the whistle changes predictably according to the frequency producedby the whistle itself, the temperature and speed of the air, speed of the train, and the distance and motion of those 'hearing' the whistle.

These factors are not at all subjective; though complex, they can be understood.

As I understand subjectivism, a truly subjective experience would be if the train went by, and the person on the train thought he was on a bus, and the person standing beside the tracks thought she saw a deer cross the tracks, rather than a train ON the tracks.

Keith.

[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: Keith Russell ]</p>

Primal

John:


Well I do believe some thingscan be said to be "relative" first off in epistemic terms, in the sense that the data given to each may lead to different interpretations and angles etc. i.e. variation. What I would reject is that the viewpoints were all by that token equally made up or arbitrary. Even in relativity theory the speed of light is absolute, and there is a right and wrong within the viewpoints, and a right and wrong compariing the viewpoints. The people for example would be wrong even within their viewpoints if they saw a rock and said "I cannot see a rock." There is also a right and wrong when certain principles of evidence is applied to given sense data i.e. Occam's Razor. Hence I will for the above facts, lean more towards variation within objectivism then I would relativism.


Well that would depend on what one meant by 'absolutely objective', ironic as it is.

If you mean something one can be 1oo percent certain is true, then I would say the law of noncontradiction and the fact that I am experiencing. As such things could not be disproven even in theory.

If you mean experience without any bias at all or outside the mind, then I would concede. I believe though that being objective amounts more to adhering to certain epistemic standards that are not a matter or pure bias or preference, not in having no bias or preference. In this sense I recognize that while a person may have a bias that having a bias is different from having one's ideas determined by bias.

This depends partly on which sense one is using the term subjective, if by that one means within the mind, well then I'd concede knowledge is surely in the mind. If by subjective you mean, based on unproven bias, cultural/individual preference and/or prejudice, then I"d disagree.

Also there seems to be a differing way of viewing axioms, in a foundationalist system they are true or absolute and not matters of convention. In a constructivist system axioms are matters of convention so to argue for a constructivist position via axioms being a matter of convention would itself rest on constructivist axiom and be circular.

1) I do not equate proof with "empirical verification" as I am not a radical empiricist. Thus I do not think I need to bring in emprical or scientific evidence to show that subjectivism is false, I can simply bring in logic.

2) I will say I have done both, established foundationalism absolutely and refuted constructivism. As I think they are the only two mutually exclusive positions.

Now the subjectivist, or any constructivist will say "but within my system there is no logic hence that does not work."

To which I will reply "Believe in logic or not, it is the ultimate authority in matters of proof, and if your position is at odds with logic your position is disproven whether you wish to admit it or not."

Just like if someone will not admit that a gun shot will kill him or her, his belief or disbelief will not effect the outcome. Just like a creationist may reject evolutionary theory as scientific, the acceptance or rejection of evolution by a creationist has no bearing on whether or not evolutionary theory is scientific.

Likewise the belief/disbelief of a constructivist, in regards to logic and proof, has no bearing on whether or not constructivism is proven or disproven. Only logic determines that, as it has. And since constructivists reject logic on the fundamental level, the constructivist is disproven and wrong at the fundamental level.

Primal

xianseeker:

I believe language plays an important role in philosophical discussion as a tool for communication and conceptualization. However I believe this is a far cry from language actually determining thought or sense experience.

To make an analogy take oxygen, oxygen is needed for any sort of thinking or philosophizing. Oxygen then is necssary for philosophy, but can it be said from the above that the air you breath determines your philosophy? The gap there is much more obvious then it's linguistic counter-part, but it helps show why linguistic determinism in philosophy is unwarranted.

I would like to know what a non-constructivist/non-foundationalist epistimology would be like exactly. As I do not see how such a line of thought is possible.

John Page

Hi Keith:

I'm not sure what you mean by truly subjective. How, in your example above is it determined that "the train went by"? My suggestion is that in making that statement you assume a somwhat Cartesian view of the world with a fixed and absolute reference point against which all else can be judged erroneous.

Cheers, John

John Page

The law of non-contradiction is an axiom that is used to define the meaning of the word true within a two-valued system of logic. There is no need to "disprove" something that is made up.

By subjective I mean incorporating potential errors in perception that result from the observers incomplete. An observer could be said to be less subjective by making more and varied observations. A group of observers sharing their observations might come to a mutual intersubjective view that is more accurate than they would have individually.

I consider any bias/preference to be a form of error in perception that contributes to our subjective nature, but clearly not the only cause.

Your saying so is totally unconvincing to me. I believe that we share a common external reality such as you seem to assume in your foundationalism argument. However, I see no explanation as to why and how you think this endows you with an objective viewpoint.

As to constructivism, it seems to me that the organ of the mind/brain constructs a subjective view of reality within the constraints imposed by limited sense data and limited brainpower/function. Thus, even the foundationalist must admit the possibility of constructivism occuring for us to experience (in our minds) reality at all.

Systems of logic are products of the mind and have no ultimate authority except in reference to the systems of which they form part. In your statement above you seem to wish to replace god with a new ultimate authority - logic. This is sheer folly IMO, its like saying that "like poles attract" because of the laws of magnetism. Rather, man has divined a rule that applies in all known experimental results - reality causes the law, not the other way round!!

This is your subjective opinion and not supportable through reason, unless of course you have some special knowledge about "the fundamental level" of which I am ignorant. You may also wish to not that, by definition, axioms are conventions in any system, including foundationalism.

Cheers, John

Primal

I disagree I see it as an ultimate standard in matters of truth. Not just a way to navigate between two opposing opinions, many other things such as Occam's Razor can do that as well. Also there is great need to disprove something that can be made up for what should be disproven besides that which was made up?

I'd say such a term was at odds with what objectivism means and was far from the inversion of such. Also an objective statement can be aknowledged as incomplete, in fact most Objectivists see their statements as provisional.

Without some fundamental principles before hand though each observer will just be arguing in circles and in part begging the question by assuming other observers exist. Hence the "intersubjective" viewpoint helps us very little, as my interpretations of another's existence and statements are themselves merely subjective in such a model. Also how, according to your definition does reducing error make a statement more objective and less subjective? Each observation will still be in some manner incomplete and potential errors will have to be aknowledged.

I realize this, a subjective "cause" more or less is something that does not count as evidence but a conclusion reached by arbitrary guesswork. I just use the words "bias" and "prejudice" to encapsulate all such "causes."


I agree, merely saying something means very little, that is why I have already presented arguments. They may be directed against subjectivism but they also apply to constructivism as a whole.


Well my viewpoint would be objective because it is based on evidence. However I believe an objective viewpoint can be wrong. And proving that I have objective knowledge in one area doesn't mean all my beliefs are objective as a whole certainly. For this reason I will claim in regards to this issue is that I have objective knowledge on ths issue of objectivity vs subjectivity. The reason? Because logical axioms, the very basis of objectivity, demonstrate it so.

No 1) Constructivism deals with more then just sense data but concepts as well. As an objectivist I believe in concepts and not just sense data. 2) The premises supporting the argument against sense in this case would be based on sense data, hence only by being illogical could an objectivist reject sense data for such reasons.

Actually I more see them as the ultimate authorities in such systems.

I never saw God as an ultimate epistemic authority so I see no real need to replace him. But yes I do see logic as an ultimate, if not the ultimaye authority in matters of truth. I don't see any problem with this, nor do I see how my belief could be disproven even in theory.

No, because the belief about light poles is based on sense data and principles of evidence(which derive in part from logic). I aknowledge that conclusions based on sense data are provisional, but they are not the same as conclusions based on logic. In fact conclusions based on sense data can be said to be provisional provided only that the principles of evidence supercedes them.


It's more like reality is the law. In any case I see logic as reflecting the fundamentals of reality.


I will not say you are ignorant anymore then I would say a man who sees a horse and denys it is ignorant. What I will say is that, yes I and all men, unless their brains are severely damaged, have this knowledge of reality at the fundamental level i.e. fundamental knowledge. And yes this is supported by reason, for this forms the very basis on which reason is to operate.


But that is begging the question. The foundationalist is rejecting exactly the above statement, the constructivist is adhering to it. To argue for constructivism from that statement then is to argue in a circle. I do not see axioms as conventions but as self-evident truths. Hence if a constructivist denies this the constructivist is merely denying a self-evident truth, and is being fundamentally irrational.

John Page

Primal:

You stated the above in relation to the law of non-contradiction, but give no basis for adopting this viewpoint. I would be very interested to receive your definition of the word "truth" and to know how you consider we perceive truth.

... and a foundationalist is being dogmatic. Again, axioms have been made up by humans and found error prone over the ages. Your "truth" is your reference point and might include a flat earth, a round earth or a spherical earth. Maybe not good examples of axioms but surely good examples of statements that have been considered "self-evident truths" from time to time. The existence of god is another that comes to mind.

Cheers, John

Primal

This is question concerning fundamental axioms i.e. end-points in reasoning. Of course I cannot tell you why the law of noncontradiction is true, because then I would have to justify it with other standards. And I am saying the law of noncontradiction is a fundamental standard, meaning there is nothing to justify it. All of this is covered on my earliest post on this thread.


Flat earth, round earth, etc. were not theories developed by self-evident axioms but by empirical data, which I admit is provisional. Also notice how theoreis of a flat and round earth were corrected, not arbitrarily, but by apealing to other axioms and principles of evidence. Hence the absolute nature of some axioms were necessary in order to make other statements provisional.

Also keep in mind that because some people may mistakenly declare some statements self-evident when they aren't; that it doesn't mean all self-evident statements are thrown into question. That's like rejecting science because there is pseudoscience.

I admit though that my system is not perfect, people can declare things self-evident and sometimes it's hard to tell. Since these are the ultimate standards we are dealing with, one cannot readily identify right or wrong via a higher principle like one can in most cases. Again though this does not negate the system as a valid one, as such abuses can be made in all systems imaginable. Even at the emprical level, I can say I saw something I did not see. Does this invalidate sight though?

As for being dogmatic, I do not see how as I have not discouraged questioning or emprical inquiry. In fact a system based on logic and the self-evident is the opposite of dogmatic, as it readily and efficiently allows for self-correction on a great many of our claims; whereas constructivism, having no axioms by which to declare another axiom wrong, have no mechanisms for self-correction and are more likely to become dogmatic.