(October 20, 2018 at 4:22 pm)DLJ Wrote:(October 20, 2018 at 3:14 pm)Aegon Wrote: ...
objectively true
...
Ugh! Will no one rid me of this turbulent word?![]()
(October 20, 2018 at 3:14 pm)Aegon Wrote: ...
What can we confidently say is objectively true and true independent of the human experience?
...
"And"? So what is the difference between a) objectively and b) independent of the human experience?![]()
True (or false) is a label applied to a proposition for a given epistemology. It's relational, by definition.
I worded it poorly. Maybe I'm a wrong idiot, but to me a = b. The only way to say something is "objectively" true is when you can prove, to the best of your ability, that it is a valid statement even if humans weren't around to confirm its validity. Like.. the moon. Even if we were to argue that the moon doesn't exist unless somebody is observing it, we know from mathematical calculation that there's, at the very least, a massive object whose mass can impact the gravity here on Earth. So the moon, objectively, exists. That was my thought process. How many things can we say are objectively true by that criteria?
Quote:(October 20, 2018 at 3:14 pm)Aegon Wrote: ...
How much can we confidently say is true and how much are we assuming is true for the sake of our collective sanity?
Think of all the social constructs we accept as normal unthinkingly (because they've been grandfathered) or rationally (because we recognise the social value)... 'money' being an obvious example of both.
I love deconstructing social constructs. I'm on board with you here!
(October 20, 2018 at 5:45 pm)Kit Wrote:(October 20, 2018 at 4:20 pm)Aegon Wrote: You mean a process created by the human brain and performed by the human brain? It doesn't change the problem I outlined in the beginning of the OP
That's a problem between you and your brain, because my brain depends normally on empiricism.
(October 20, 2018 at 4:20 pm)Aegon Wrote: Even then, an empiricist can accept one thing, and then 50 years when research develops and we realize that that one thing is false and a new thing is true, the empiricist was guilty of calling something a fact that wasn't. Not that I blame them, because I'd be in the same boat. If what we firmly think is true now is shown not to be in 50, 100, 150, etc. years... then that surely can't be objective knowledge or truth because we know it wasn't. So why call today's facts facts?
That's the wonderful aspect of discernment between identifying as reasonable or religious. Despite the facts that back up my current empiricist view, my mind can always be changed when the proper evidence is provided. The same cannot be stated for those who are religious, for look how they attempt at altering science, intelligent design, in order to appease their biased religious views.
(October 20, 2018 at 4:20 pm)Aegon Wrote: I suppose that's why we call very convincing scientific theories "Theories" regardless of the insane amount of evidence, but how many of us forget to be humble and assume what we think is true today is really, truly, objectively true?
Word salad.
But empiricism relies on your brain as much as the other way around! The point I was making at the end was: as an empiricist, would it be wrong to refer to what is true today as the truth, like you did in your first post in this thread? I mean... considering it may not be true in 50 years' time for the exact reason you're outlining. It's currently true, not OBJECTIVELY true. Do you see what direction I'm going with this? I'm trying to figure out how to best use the word truth and how to figure out how much I really KNOW vs how much is just a best guess. Most things are the latter, and if your conscious reality that you experience at all times, that you use to make all judgments, is also just your brain's best guess as to what is going on... on what authority do you claim to know what's true? We only know what's true in our own, human-brain-created realities, no?
But like Jorg said, which was a good way to put it: we make many assumptions based off our hallucinated reality every day and things basically respond the way we expect them to, so reality must at least be pretty close to what we see. It's still mind-blowing to me.
![[Image: nL4L1haz_Qo04rZMFtdpyd1OZgZf9NSnR9-7hAWT...dc2a24480e]](https://external-preview.redd.it/nL4L1haz_Qo04rZMFtdpyd1OZgZf9NSnR9-7hAWTNVY.jpg?width=216&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=7b11e8b38bea0eacc8797fc971574ddc2a24480e)