Objective Knowledge

Chumly wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
So, for instance, if you say that you are made of glass, no one could correctly contradict you.
Are you using this as a merited example or a logical extreme?

I have no idea what you're asking. What is a "merited example?"

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Joe and Fresco, correct me if I'm wrong. I guess we are discussing two issues here. One is the ("epistemological") question of whether or not humans can examine the world "objectitvely", in a detached distinterested way, free of tacit and unexamined presuppositions. I believe THAT'S A MYTH, as I concluded, at least, from my examination of the behavior of social scientists.

I don't know if anyone else is talking about that issue, but I'm not.

JLNobody wrote:

The other is the ("ontological") issue of the existence of an objective reality independent of our experience. I cannot assert that a noumenal reality exists behind our phenomenal experience of "it" (cf. Kant). Indeed, I FEEL that Reality in the grand Hindu sense of a "Brahma" does exist, but this is not a philosophical proposition since it is not defensible intellectually or scientifically. Intellectually I am agnostic regarding Ultimate Reality (although that's not apparent from my posts), but intuitionally I'm (virtually) "certain" of its reality. I guess this is what "faith" is about; but there is no "belief" in such an intuition, since--to me--a belief is a weak or unsupported or unsupportable INTELLECTUAL proposition.

I'm glad to see you concede that your position is a metaphysical one.

JLNobody wrote:

Joe, rather than joust with you, I'd rather just try to make my contributions (hoping to receive affirmation or helpful non-competitive corrections from you) and enjoy it if you'll do the same.

I seem to recall offering you a similar deal: you wouldn't intrude your metaphysical observations into philosophical threads, and I wouldn't intrude philosophical observations into any metaphysical threads. That didn't work out either.

JLNobody wrote:

BTW, I do believe in the easter bunny but I'm too adult to chase after the ice cream vendor's truck.

Then you might want to drop the "I know but I'm not gonna' tell" act -- it makes you look like a seven-year-old.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Joe,

Answers to all your questions are contained within the references which you seem incapable of reading, Here endeth the lesson.

Well, on first glance that looks like the same kind of evasive, bullshit non-answer that I've come to expect from you, fresco. But on closer inspection it is completely satisfactory, since it shows that you accept that there is at least one objective fact.

By pointing me to Maturana as the location for finding the answers to my questions, I think it is safe to assume that you did so because you believe that Maturana has the correct answers to my questions. After all, I can't imagine that you would be so malevolent as to direct me to the incorrect answers in that lengthy and turgid article. Likewise, if the answers were only correct as to me (because they are relative to my situation or linguistic episteme or whatever), then you didn't have to refer me to the Maturana article. Instead, you could have pointed me in any direction, since I can find a satisfactory answer that is relative to me anywhere, not just in one place.

Thus, it must be the case that the correct answers to my questions are in Maturana ("correct" in the sense that, if I were to contradict them, you could accurately claim that I was wrong). But "correctness" is necessarily an objective concept, in that there can be no such thing that is relatively correct. To give an example: an answer cannot be correct only as to me but not to others, since there would then be no standard to judge the correctness of the answer except my own judgment. In such a case, my judgment would be the same thing as correctness, which would mean that the answer could be correct or incorrect according to nothing more than my mere whim or caprice. And if that were the case, then I not only could find the correct answers in Maturana, I could find the incorrect answers there as well -- and I could find them anywhere else for that matter.

Consequently, I think your response is sufficient to establish that you accept that there is at least one objective fact: the fact that the Maturana article contains the answers to my questions. And given that this thread concerns the existence of objective facts, I don't think there is any reason for me to plow through the Maturana article to confirm this conclusion.

0 Replies

Joe,

My friend is a well respected public prosecutor who has just lost a case that was "in the bag" as far as all the lawyers and the judge were (privately) concerned. The Jury turned out to be fickle and acquitted a guy who was without doubt "guilty". I mention this because "truth" and "reality" were re-negotiated away from "the expected" within the artificial social structure imposed within that jury room. If you understand this then you should understand the gist of my references which imply that all "truth and reality" are a function of negotiation within natural social structures.

Whether you take up the reading or not, I would be obliged if you would have the curtesy to acknowledge the efforts of JLN and myself (and others) to explain our positions to you by at leat refraining from your pointless negativity. No reply is required.

0 Replies

As a point of fact, that's a very good example of what happens in "social structures" as I interpret your post. Everything we perceive is subjective, because each of us has a different "reality." Truth and reality is never consistent from one social being to the next. Examples of that surrounds us every day.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

As a point of fact, that's a very good example of what happens in "social structures" as I interpret your post. Everything we perceive is subjective, because each of us has a different "reality." Truth and reality is never consistent from one social being to the next. Examples of that surrounds us every day.

c.i.,

(You are the only one speaking at my level of understanding on epistemology. Smile

)

You don't mean "everything", do you? There are simple facts out there that everybody can consider real, right? These facts may be uninteresting in themselves but can be considered objective facts.

0 Replies

wandeljw

What we all agree on at the most fundamental level is a function of our common perceptual apparatus. You only need to consider "reality" for another species to see how "objectivity" is relative.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Chumly wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
So, for instance, if you say that you are made of glass, no one could correctly contradict you.
Are you using this as a merited example or a logical extreme?
I have no idea what you're asking. What is a "merited xample?"

I'll rephrase using your own words.

Tell me what you mean when you use the phrase "for instance".

Do you mean when you say "for instance" you mean "for example"?
Do you mean when you say "for instance" you mean an example that has merit in the context of your claim "if you say that you are made of glass, no one could correctly contradict you"?

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

wandeljw

What we all agree on at the most fundamental level is a function of our common perceptual apparatus. You only need to consider "reality" for another species to see how "objectivity" is relative.

fresco,

Is that the same as saying "reality" is merely the way our minds organize sense data? Are there any "facts" that can be considered always "true"?

0 Replies

wandeljw

.....I should have added that "agreement" is a stage beyond a perceptual event. It is a social event mediated through language.

We crossed posts...."Truth" is "what works" for particular purposes.
Contrary to popular parlance is is neither "true" nor "false" that the earth orbits the sun. For everyday purposes we use the sun as the moving object. For astronomy we use the reverse. In essence the heliocentic model simply makes the maths easier (and even there we have each rotating round a common centre of gravity)

0 Replies

Wandel: fresco,

Is that the same as saying "reality" is merely the way our minds organize sense data? Are there any "facts" that can be considered always "true"?

As I see it, there's never 100 percent agreement on anything 100 percent of the time. Consider colorblindness, visual weaknesses, perception/misinterpretations, established beliefs, misinformation, errors and omissions, contradictions, cultural bias, religion, languages, and our biology. "Always true" presupposes some kind of "perfection" which doesn't exist - IMHO. Only at the personal level can anything be always true.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

In essence the heliocentic model simply makes the maths easier (and even there we have each rotating round a common centre of gravity)

I can see that. The Catholic Church was aware of Copernicus' book but did not consider the ideas "dangerous" because they were considered only of interest to mathematicians. Copernicus was not put on the church's forbidden list until after Galileo tried to teach the ideas in ways that could be understood by non-mathematicians.

0 Replies

c.i.

Yes. Note that "data" are always relative to the functioing of an observer.
"Data" implies "organization.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Joe,

My friend is a well respected public prosecutor who has just lost a case that was "in the bag" as far as all the lawyers and the judge were (privately) concerned. The Jury turned out to be fickle and acquitted a guy who was without doubt "guilty". I mention this because "truth" and "reality" were re-negotiated away from "the expected" within the artificial social structure imposed within that jury room.

No they weren't. Any truth or reality that is subject to "re-negotiation" is neither true nor real. You may want to define "truth" and "reality" to permit such re-negotiation, but then such definitions themselves would be subject to re-negotiation, and so they wouldn't constitute definitions at all.

But go ahead, I encourage you to explain to me how I'm wrong.

fresco wrote:

If you understand this then you should understand the gist of my references which imply that all "truth and reality" are a function of negotiation within natural social structures.

I understand what you're saying. I just don't accept it.

fresco wrote:

Whether you take up the reading or not, I would be obliged if you would have the curtesy to acknowledge the efforts of JLN and myself (and others) to explain our positions to you by at leat refraining from your pointless negativity. No reply is required.

Which explanations in particular do you want me to acknowledge? This one?

JLNobody wrote:

Why take time to explain what is self-evident?

Or maybe this one?

fresco wrote:

Answers to all your questions are contained within the references which you seem incapable of reading, Here endeth the lesson.

If you ask me, you and JLN have done your typical piss-poor job of explaining your positions. Here endeth my acknowledgment.

Reply all you want.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
Chumly wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
So, for instance, if you say that you are made of glass, no one could correctly contradict you.
Are you using this as a merited example or a logical extreme?
I have no idea what you're asking. What is a "merited xample?"
I'll rephrase using your own words.

Tell me what you mean when you use the phrase "for instance".

Is this some kind of joke? Do you really not know what it means when someone says "for instance?"

Chumly wrote:

Do you mean when you say "for instance" you mean "for example"?

Yes.

Chumly wrote:

Do you mean when you say "for instance" you mean an example that has merit in the context of your claim "if you say that you are made of glass, no one could correctly contradict you"?

Yes.

0 Replies

You should be OK with my term "merited example" now and can answer my question, unless there are other phrases you need clarification on, if so let me know.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Only at the personal level can anything be always true.

Is that a true statement?

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

You should be OK with my term "merited example" now and can answer my question, unless there are other phrases you need clarification on, if so let me know.

My example has "merit" (whatever that means -- I still have no idea) in the context of my argument.

0 Replies

Let's try this

joefromchicago wrote:

So, for instance, if you say that you are made of glass, no one could correctly contradict you.

Substantiate that "no one could correctly contradict you" (sic) in whatever manner best supports your position.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
Only at the personal level can anything be always true.

Is that a true statement?

+++

For me, yes.

0 Replies

Objective Knowledge

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know