99Percent

Suppose the following scenario: a professor is giving a lecture in a university. Suddenly one of the students, a perfectly rational girl, gets up from one of the middle seats, walks toward the podium and dumps the contents of an ink well on the professor's head.

Reasons would be that the girl was mad at the professor, perhaps he was his estranged lover, or the professor said something trully hateful a few moments back that affected the student deeply, etc.

Pure logic cannot explain such human events. Pure logic would say something like this: a neurological process based on a specific genetic configuration fired a specific sets of neurons in a preprogrammed fashioned that propelled the muscles of the student toward the professor and moved her hands so that she dumped the inkwell on his head.

Another scientific explanation could rely on statistics, such as there has been determined through extensive investigation that there is an X probability that a girl of the students age will commit such an act, and that event simply confirms or modifies such a statistical history.

Both logical explanations are clearly absurd, but it shows the limits of logic and science in such situations. However an objective explanation for the girl's action can still be determined, there is no mystery involved because the girl is a rational being acting with reasons of her own.

I think this is an important distinction to make because things like objective morality has been discarded on grounds that it is unscientific or that it is not logical, etc. Objectivity in this case is not scientific, its rational, it is not based on pure logic. It cannot in fact.

Adrian Selby

I would look at it this way. You have given two explanations of one event. These explanations are couched in vocabularies suited to different purposes. My view therefore is that the above quote is the event stated in a vocabulary very useful for describing brain processes involved in the event. The other explanation, e.g. jilted lover, is one that utilises another vocabulary more useful in different kinds of discourse. I do not think therefore that the vocabularies are synonymous of each other, merely that they have a common referent, a set of events as you've described.

The fact that one of the vocabularies, the 'brain' one, happens to be efficient at describing 'cold hard facts pertaining to material objects', in this case the brain, might confuse the issue but shouldn't. Thus I think your comparison, with the purpose of showing how human intention is somehow beyond a hard scientific explanation is a false comparison because it attempts to conflate vocabularies that have entirely different purposes, i.e. it isn't efficient to talk of the event described in 'brain' terms if you want to know why she did it, but it is efficient to talk of the event in these terms if you're interested in what happens when someone acts in a certain way, and you can point to the various areas of the brain and say of them 'these areas are associated with (this vocabulary connects to these words in this other vocabulary) emotion, hate, anger...whatever.

er, just rereading this, not sure I do actually disagree with you, it is new years eve and i have had a drink i guess the point i'm making is that there is only a limit to the scientific explanation because its not efficacious terminology, but it is a description of the state of affairs and no less sufficient in terms of what it has been developed for. Saying therefore its insufficient because one requires it to do the job of a different more general and interpersonal vocabulary is a little 'unfair' on it

thefugitivesaint

99%:
But, this aspect of what we have labelled "objective" is very different than the meaning you wish to employ. The hypothetical "observer" still has to assimilate the event through their specific understanding of what took place. The "observer"(s) presence, having witnessing the act, sets them within a certain relationship with the event. They are only removed as far as they did not commit the act themselves but they are still part of what happened since what happened has become a part of them or their experience. How one addresses the event is still entirely subjective.

Now, this does not mean that a concrete motivation cannot be assertained as to why the student did what she did. The "observer" could ask the other student directly for instance. This would establish the motivation on the "actors" part but all the emotional variables will still be abscent. I've done things in my life that i have been hard pressed to explain to others. I assume we all have.

Now, competing claims as to why the student did what she did will of course surface as people have a habit of talking shit...pardon my french. Not all explinations will be equal in their exposition; Some will be complete conjecture, others will be riddled with some truth, still others will capture more of what actually took place, etc. Thankfully, utilizing logic and reason a close approximation to the actual reasons can be established and used to defeat competing claims to describe the event. The process of weeding out inaccurate descriptions is as simple as the aftermentioned questioning of the student in question. Whether to believe the explination provided is entirely up to the one asking the question.

But, is this "objective?" Is establishing why the student did what she did an "objective" answer? The students motivations for the actions taken are entirely subjective. The conclusion reached by this hypothetical student was to involve the entire class in her action by commiting it publicaly. The "why" behind it is only "objective" to the "observers" due to the fact that it is someone else's action and not their own. But, the process of "observing" is different to each "observer." Each person present will have witnessed the event in a different way. Each person present would not be perfectly rational (those type pf people only exist in hypotheticals). Thankfully, we have developed a trial and error system that allows us to select from different details to surmise a consclusion. Some are wrong and some are correct. The point is there is no answer easily given. There is no "objective" process to rely on to determine the truth of the event. There is only the fallible, hueristic process of human cognitive rationality to utilize. Specific to our development and specific to our needs.

Given the parameters of how we establish conclusions given competing observations and claims we can then fine tune the process to the best of our abilities. But, the process does nto take on a life of its own. It merely becomes the best established pattern of determing truth due to its proven reliability. If the process ceased to serve a useful function or if some other process came about that proved to be more efficient then the agents using the process would feel it appropriate to discard it. "Objective" here still does not eliminate the need to have participants it merely means a certain agreed upon standard of measurement. I know this sounds a bit Pomo (and i am not denying the "objective" universe merely the seperation of people from their actions/decisions/ etc. by some so-called "objective" process/morality/whatever) and i may not be as clear here as i would like to be but live with my shortcoming.

"Objective" morality is unscientific, dubiously metaphysical and does not help explain "human intentions" in any way.

-theSaint

Keith Russell

Greetings:

Do you really expect to be able to use logic, when you don't have all the relevant facts?

If you don't know the background that led to the confrontation between the girl and her professor, how can you expect logic to 'fill in the gaps'?

Logic is not precognition, or some kind of mystical revelation.

Logic works by evaluting facts in comparison with reality.

If you don't have all the facts, logic cannot work; it cannot provide a correct answer (truth) from incomplete data.

Keith.

thefugitivesaint

Well Keith you can't reach any real conclusion based on insuficient information. My point was that the most effective and efficient method may possess an aspect of "Objectivity" but that the process itself took a lengthy trial and error evolution to become the tool it is presently. The best method of establishing conclusions based on the given evidence developed along with human cognitive capacities. It did not spring from the head of Zeus, come handed down to us from the heavens nor does it exist in nature waiting for us to simply stumble upon it. It is a human invention, fulfilling human needs and it is not some eternal, "Objective" law which all species, everywhere need utilize.

-theSaint

99Percent

The point of my little illustration is to show that human intentions are not provable with empiricism, science or pure logic.

That the student acted in such a way is true. That the girl had a definite intention to commit such an act can only be determined by other humans, by reason alone.

And that is an objective fact not provable by science or pure logic. Curiously this does not apply to any other animals. We can mostly determine why an animal acts in such a way because the behavior of animals are 99.99% instinctual and predetermined in specific circumstances. Not so with humans because of the complexity of our brain and because of the affections of long term memory storage of which we can never know entirely its contents or its interelationships. This, in practical terms, translates to free will.

thefugitivesaint

99%:
Not true at all and anyone who has taken any time to study animals can attest to this point. For example, Ravens, a bird which posess probably the highest intelligence of known bird species, spend most of their day in a myriad number of playful activites. Ravens go out of their way to amuse themselves, play jokes on whatever animal is around them (including human beings) and run around doing whatever brings them joy (or so one can surmise from such random actions). This activity is not done out of pure instinct but out of a need for the animal in question to occupy its free time and its intelligence.

Various other animals also act in ways that are distinctly not instinctual. The myth that human beings are free of instinct while every other animal species on this planet are fundamentaly tied to instinct is not valid. We've been over this before 99. Before making such grandiose pronouncements about human beings try looking to the empirical evidence concerning animal behaviour first.

-theSaint