Torri wrote :
@Ding an Sich,
To the first question, using the scientific method.
Then one must ask if progress and "truth" are intertwined? Intuitively, without thinking thoroughly, the answer would be a yes, but on deeper thought, I'd have to lean towards no. Does modern science give us truth or a way to interpret events of nature?
The subject-object problem is a headache to clarify. Why is a human subject capable of interpreting the objectivity that is the world around them? Or how sure is a humans capability of interpreting the objects around them? A some-sort of transject mainframe from the perspective of a subject.
BHANU PADMO :
Identity of Truth (2).
Often, truths may seem intertwined. But they turn convergent in the long run.
Since the main ingredient for manufacture of primary truth in the form of subjective idea is perceptional memory, the contrivances that accelerate perception do play an important role in genesis of truth. If *science* is to be accredited for availability of newer and more efficient contrivances, that is fine. But it ought to be borne in mind that perceptional memories are secondary with respect to conceptualization that assembles the former into ideas. This primary truth-synthesizer viz. conceptualization doesn*t fall in the domain of science. Philosophy is the mother of truth when science is the utilitarian art.
The subject-object issue isn*t a problem when seen in right perspective. Every piece of existence (entity) has the primordial right to know itself and its surrounding. Thus subjectivity and objectivity are amalgamated into a two-in-one.
Interpreting objectivity needs no magic. It is spontaneous in view of given personal ability. The entity is very sure of interpreting the objectivity that surrounds it. What it feels about the objectivity is the *personal truth*, final for now and mutable thenceforth.
In view of the doctrine of primordial right, there is no need for proposing *transject mainframe* to explain a subject*s vicariousness (empathy). The stone sees.