Scientific method proves order cannot exist w/o intelligence

[chatpilot]

I see you are trying to draw me into something here so okay I will bite, yes that is exactly what I am saying. Although, I might change my mind later.

[rjh4 is back]

I see you are trying to draw me into something here so okay I will bite, yes that is exactly what I am saying. Although, I might change my mind later.

Actually, I probably should have more of a plan here but I don't. I just am wondering how you determine things.

When two people disagree on their observations, how do they figure out which, if any, observes the objective truth?

[Purple Rabbit]

People have no access to objective truth. The best we can do is assume some logic in the perceptions we make. Burning oneself once from fire or other heat source should suffice as a strong indication to avoid direct contact with hot pans.

The only criterion is what works best to make models of reality. That is the principle that made the medical equipment in the hospital possible. That principle has brought us sewery, laptops, medicins, cars, lunar landers and mars probes, knowledge of DNA, proteins, cells, cancer therapies, agriculture techniques,....

What are the goodies of several thousand of years of religion. What knowledge has it brought us, what pain has it relieved, what diseases have been cured by it, what problems have been solved by it?

[Tiberius]

I have a question for you rjh4. I apologize for not being more active in this thread, but theVOID kinda took over and in responding to you and I felt I had nothing more to add.

Anyway, my question is this:

You come across as a person who despite several flaws in reasoning (in my view), at least has an understanding of objective truths / logical foundations. As you have demonstrated (and I agree with you), observation / science is no way of knowing objective truths. Everything we observe or experience is subjective, since it requires us to interpret at some point.

However, you also have stated previously that the Bible is an objective truth, as it is God's word. My question is how reading the Bible to obtain truth isn't a subjective action (since reading the words requires both interpretation of the language as well as of the meaning), and how you can objectively state that the Bible is the word of God, and therefore objective, without resorting to assumptions and subjectivity?

[chatpilot]

Adrian said: "science is no way of knowing objective truths"

I disagree for one reason and that is that there are some truths that no matter how we choose to interpret them remain true, for instance what goes up must come down. If you throw a ball up as hard as you can it is an objective truth that the forces of gravity are going to act against the ball and force it back down. Subjectivity in this situation has no bearing since no matter what you believe that ball is still going to come back down.[/quote]

[theVOID]

Adrian said: "science is no way of knowing objective truths"

I disagree for one reason and that is that there are some truths that no matter how we choose to interpret them remain true, for instance what goes up must come down. If you throw a ball up as hard as you can it is an objective truth that the forces of gravity are going to act against the ball and force it back down. Subjectivity in this situation has no bearing since no matter what you believe that ball is still going to come back down.

That is a relative truth and you would be required to make a number of precursor statements for it to be objective truth, such as:

If you throw a ball 1)that isn't made of antimatter, 2)with < a certain amount of force and 3)from the surface of an object with sufficient gravitational influence etc, then it is objectively true that it will fall back towards the ground.

[chatpilot]

Thanks Void but relative to what? My actions? When I posted this I was thinking only in the subjective mode I was not even considering relative truths. Interesting. I get subjective truth but according to what I read in wikipedia I don't see how relativism is a valid indicator of truth.

The term often refers to truth relativism, which is the doctrine that there are no absolute truths, i.e., that truth is always relative to some particular frame of reference, such as a language or a culture. However, this statement is self-defeating, because if it were held true that all truth is subject to a frame of reference, then the statement in itself is subject to a frame of reference, and thus not true for everyone.

[Tiberius]

Adrian said: "science is no way of knowing objective truths"

I disagree for one reason and that is that there are some truths that no matter how we choose to interpret them remain true, for instance what goes up must come down. If you throw a ball up as hard as you can it is an objective truth that the forces of gravity are going to act against the ball and force it back down. Subjectivity in this situation has no bearing since no matter what you believe that ball is still going to come back down.

Replace "ball" with rocket and I wouldn't like to see you in charge of a space program. Give something enough force and it can escape the pull of Earth's gravity. "What come up must come now" is a nice kindergarden phrase, but it doesn't hold any truth in it.

It is perfectly subjective because we are still observing the ball, and our observations are subjective. The laws we have to describe are also subjective, since there is no way of objectively holding them as truth. If the ball suddenly decides to float in mid-air instead of coming down, the law has been violated and is evidently not the truth!

[theVOID]

Thanks Void but relative to what? My actions? When I posted this I was thinking only in the subjective mode I was not even considering relative truths. Interesting. I get subjective truth but according to what I read in wikipedia I don't see how relativism is a valid indicator of truth.

Relative to the strength of gravity in your location (weak gravity may see the ball suspended or rising indefinitely).

Relative to how hard you throw the ball (you may throw it past the point of no return).

Relative to the composition of the ball (A ball who's average area/mass is lighter than air would float away from the source of gravity due to air currents).

Thus the statement "what comes up must come down" is a relative truth.

The term often refers to truth relativism, which is the doctrine that there are no absolute truths, i.e., that truth is always relative to some particular frame of reference, such as a language or a culture. However, this statement is self-defeating, because if it were held true that all truth is subject to a frame of reference, then the statement in itself is subject to a frame of reference, and thus not true for everyone.

You can have a universe with absolute truths and relative truths, they are not mutually exclusive.

For example in our universe:

Absolute: The speed of light in a vacuum is 299,792,458 m/s

Relative : The sky is blue

[chatpilot]

Thanks Void and Adrian for the clarifications. You have both motivated me to study relativism as my next project I am very interested in this subject. But before I do this my preliminary concern with relativism at the outset,is that it seems to me that relativism suffers from being over descriptive. If that is the case then everything is relative to something ad infinitum.

For instance your interpretation of my simple example of tossing a ball up into the air.

Relative to the strength of gravity in your location (weak gravity may see the ball suspended or rising indefinitely).
Relative to how hard you throw the ball (you may throw it past the point of no return).
Relative to the composition of the ball (A ball who's average area/mass is lighter than air would float away from the source of gravity due to air currents).

All of your add ons in parenthesis except for the last one are all in the most mundane way impossibilities in our world as is evidenced by our everyday observation of throwing a ball up in the air. A ball with weight and mass (for instance a baseball) will not remain suspended or rising indefinitely, and no matter how hard you throw a ball it will not break free from Earths gravitational force. It is in this context that I would consider my example an absolute truth that anyone in the same ballpark as I could confirm by conducting the same experiment.