Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Exodus111 t1_iqnvaso wrote

Reply to comment by TMax01 in “The objective requires the subjective as a foil if it is to play the scientific role late nineteenth-century philosophers assigned to it, not to mention to become accessible through our perceptual apparatus in new kinds of mathematical and logical symbolism.” by Maxwellsdemon17

So what's the difference between Objective truth and scientifically proven?

Science has requirements that are basically cultural. Yes the scientific method is powerful, because it handles humans beings irrational belief in their own subjective truth.

So we invent a functional system that says, prove it in a lab, let someone else try to disprove you. If they can't it's a theory.

That's a good system, but it's still based on arbitrary rules.

1

TMax01 t1_iqo9dk0 wrote

>So what's the difference between Objective truth and scientifically proven?

I think the real question is what are the similarities. The issue becomes fraught with both epistemic and metaphysical uncertainty, to varying degrees based on whether you are asking about a specific instance of fact or demanding a categorical declaration. Science is about searching for objective truth, and finding provisional truth instead. So I think the real issue depends on if we are considering whether something is scientifically certain versus whether the implications of it are as equally certain.

>Science has requirements that are basically cultural.

Scientists have requirements that are essentially cultural. "Science" as an abstraction does not, and cannot, or at least should not.

>Yes the scientific method is powerful, because it handles humans beings irrational belief in their own subjective truth.

This goes to the underlying inconsistency in both the postmodern materialist (scientification) and postmodern idealist (anti-realist) perspectives. Both adopt the postmodern premise concerning the term "rational" (or irrational). According to IPTM (the Information Processing Theory of Mind, the standard explanation of cognition all postmodernists share) good reasoning must be logical, and therefore rational, but bad reasoning is not logical, and therefor irrational. So "rational", when applied to human cognition, reduces to simply whether someone else's reasoning (or conjecture, or behavior) is the same as yours: when it is, it reinforces the IPTM model and is deemed "logic", when it doesn't, it reinforces the IPTM model and is deemed "irrational belief". A consistent theory of cognition would recognize that either all beliefs are rational (the term 'belief' simply equating to whether the speaker, or for that matter the believer, is aware of the reasoning for the conjecture) or that all knowledge (which I presume you will accept as a complementary contrast to 'belief') is irrational (indistinguishable from "beliefs" and merely conjecture, with the singular exception of cogito ergo sum).

>prove it in a lab, let someone else try to disprove [it] >That's a good system, but it's still based on arbitrary rules.

I don't see those rules as arbitrary in any way. They are both functional and necessary.

1

iiioiia t1_iqonpwf wrote

>Scientists have requirements that are essentially cultural. "Science" as an abstraction does not, and cannot, or at least should not.

There is a very real difference between abstract ~intentions and object level behavior.

2

TMax01 t1_iqov9ma wrote

There might be a hypothetical difference, but as far as I can tell (making allowances for the brevity and syntax of your contention) whether there can be a "very real" distinction between those two things is quite uncertain, to say the least. Could you explain your point, and your reason for interjecting it, further?

3

iiioiia t1_iqp0huf wrote

>There might be a hypothetical difference, but as far as I can tell...

This satisfies me.

−1

TMax01 t1_iqp5lwx wrote

You're easily satisfied. I can (and do) presume it is because you're content with self-satisfaction, and prefer to not have your ideas challenged.

3

iiioiia t1_iqp5z07 wrote

You are satisfied with presumption, I am satisfied when you acknowledge it. Win win!

0

TMax01 t1_iqpaqec wrote

You're still flailing. You make just as many presumptions as anyone else, you just aren't as aware of it, or unable to admit it.

2

iiioiia t1_iqpf4hf wrote

Name 5 presumptions I have made.

Also, how do you know how presumptuous all other people are?

1

TMax01 t1_iqpfahx wrote

LOL.

2

iiioiia t1_iqslxjs wrote

Humor, genuine or feigned, is a common response to difficult questions.

1

TMax01 t1_iqtb5xy wrote

Flailing tends to be more genuine, but still qualifies as posturing. Flail away.

1

Exodus111 t1_iqofd5t wrote

> I don't see those rules as arbitrary in any way. They are both functional and necessary.

They are, but also arbitrary.

1

TMax01 t1_iqolbqc wrote

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

2

twoiko t1_iqp9dzs wrote

Then they are not arbitrary in any meaningful or important way.

1