@fresco,
fresco wrote:
This thread is in response to a challenge by Frank Apisa
Quote:I defy you to create a scenario in which there is no objective REALITY.
We already
have such a scenario because "objectivity" amounts to agreement among scientists on the collection and interpretation of their data. But that "data" and that "interpretation" are always directed and embedded in
paradigms (methods of working and communication) which are subject to either gradual or revolutionary shifts. Scientists work on
coherence of paradigms rather than
correspondence with "objective truth". In short they want to know WHAT WORKS to assist the human quest for prediction and control. not the nebulous question of WHAT "IS". (See theories of truth) Such a scenario constitutes a major attack on "naive realism".
The psychologist/philosopher Piaget could be said to have encapsulated interactions between paradigms and data in terms of the microcosm of an individual observer and its "world". In Piagets description of "adaptation",the intellectual development of a child underwent progressive states of cognitive structure (
schemata) which determined what constituted "relevant" data or perceptual input. That input then gradually changed the observer from state 1 to state 2, with the corresponding changes of state of what constituted the world/reality for that observer, and by extrapolation to a potentially
open number of successive observer-world states.
Now this continuous interaction of "observer" and "world" cannot itself constitute what we call "reality", because that usage of the word transgresses its normal usage as a context dependent state of social perceptual agreement among conscious observers as to "what is the case", irrespective of whether that agreement about "is-ness" is transient or subject to negotiation. The interactive scenario I have outline is based on a
picture of separation of a "consciousness" from "its world". But that separation is problematic for various philosophical reasons. For example, both
reductionism and
idealism would take
ontological issue with that separation.
The only thing you have pointed out here is when there are multiple pieces of data, that data can be interpreted in multiple ways resulting in a difference of conclusions. However; this is not always the case in single set data.
I can list multiple examples but I will give a few.
One, color. Colors are not subjective, they are objectively learned. The same with numbers, they are not subjective value sets, they are objective. Another is language, if language was subjective then NOTHING ever written or spoken could ever be understood.
The reason we can teach colors, is because there is a group consensus of what each color is. This can be verified through wave frequencies so there is no subjective bias where one person experiences the color red to be that of the other person's color blue. It doesn't happen.
Same for numbers, they are distinct value sets otherwise math would be completely arbitrary and irrational.
Language is the biggest sign that reality is NOT subjective. Being able to communicate a thought or concept would be impossible if language was subjective. Because the words being used are a shared conclusion data set. If I were to talk about a tree, you wouldn't be picturing a dog or something that was not a tree. Sure that picture could be of a particular type of tree that may differ than mine but there would be a common similarity that both pictures would be that of a tree.
Probably the most likely conclusion to come to is that there are bits of reality that are subjective and there are bits of reality that are objective. Specifically when you are referring to multiple connected data sets, then it becomes more complicated to reach a conclusion or consensus.
Two examples of this, are music and art. What one person experiences as pleasant or appealing, others may not come to that conclusion. It is because within art and music the data is not a single experienced piece but multiple connected data sets. This is why you can look at a piece of art or music and say you like certain aspects of it and not like other parts of it even when the subject is the same piece of art or music.
This is how people get confused. They try to assume that multiple data sets are the same as single data sets and come to a wrong conclusion about reality.
