Is it Actually Possible that You...

[Sunstone]

Is it actually possible that you think you are in possession of a non-subjective means of establishing "objective" truths?

If so, that's just incredible. Jaw-dropping incredible. Is not every means of establishing truths ultimately subjective?

But...if you really do insist you have a non-subjective means of establishing "objective" truths then...

...by all means, precisely what is this miraculously non-subjective means of establishing "objective" truths?



_________________________
And now, for your amusement...

 

[Augustus]

But...if you really do insist you have a non-subjective means of establishing "objective" truths then...
...by all means, precisely what is this miraculously non-subjective means of establishing "objective" truths?

Just type it in UNDERLINED BOLD CAPS followed by a as that establishes objective fact in any RF subject area.

 

[Estro Felino]

First of all..what is the truth?

 

[wizanda]

...by all means, precisely what is this miraculously non-subjective means of establishing "objective" truths?

Maths.

Plus good logical reasoning, where for every equation we have to show the workings.

Like always saying, " it is easier to spot the fallacies in a subject first, than to establish the truth built upon lies"...

Yet this doesn't mean we can not use algebra based rules of reasoning, to show every point of fallacy in analysis, so it becomes objectively verifiable.

In my opinion.

 

[Sunstone]

First of all..what is the truth?

First off, we must begin by establishing there is such a thing as reality. i.e. if you're going to ask stupid questions, you might as well start with one of the dumbest.

Maths.

Plus good logical reasoning, where for every equation we have to show the workings.

Like always saying, " it is easier to spot the fallacies in a subject first, than to establish the truth built upon lies"...

Yet this doesn't mean we can not use algebra based rules of reasoning, to show every point of fallacy in analysis, so it becomes objectively verifiable.

In my opinion.

Oh? And who or what judges whether your mathematical calculations are correct or incorrect? Also, to who or to what are you presenting your conclusions to as truths?

 

[wizanda]

Also, to who or to what are you presenting your conclusions to as truths?

For a truth to be established as objective, it has to be reviewed by many, and all agreed it makes sense to them.

And who or what judges whether your mathematical calculations are correct or incorrect?

Maths judges it.

So in the rules of reasoning presented, personally believe it is possible to ask a series of logical questions to reverse engineer any question.

The periodic table is all mathematical equatable, therefore we're all maths; the Fibonacci sequence within our finger print, snail shell, ocean wave, galaxy spiral, means we're being sequenced mathematically from a single Source, therefore everything is quantifiable.

Our brain is using mathematical sequences like music to ask its own questions, so mathematical logic can present objective reasoning, if we have the right sequence of questions.

In my opinion.

 

[crossfire]

I'm not sure whether this conforms to your standards:

 

[crossfire]

Is not every means of establishing truths ultimately subjective?

Would this statement be an objective truth or a subjective truth? Now I'm gonna have to consult Nagarjuna's Two Truths Madhyamaka Karika.

**grabs a large bottle of aspirin and a pint of whiskey**

 

[littleme]

I get a feeling about things from time to time which don't seem very logical, but surprisingly enough are correct.

 

[Sunstone]

Would this statement be an objective truth or a subjective truth? Now I'm gonna have to consult Nagarjuna's Two Truths Madhyamaka Karika.

**grabs a large bottle of aspirin and a pint of whiskey**

The only folks who possess an objective means of establishing truths are the alleged gods. That is, omniscience would be the only objective means of establishing truths.

 

[Polymath257]

Oh? And who or what judges whether your mathematical calculations are correct or incorrect? Also, to who or to what are you presenting your conclusions to as truths?

More importantly, who determines your axioms and your rules of logic?

 

[Darkforbid]

And there was me thinking water is wet

 

[Howard Is]

Is it actually possible that you think you are in possession of a non-subjective means of establishing "objective" truths?

Yes, but I can never remember it later.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Is it actually possible that you think you are in possession of a non-subjective means of establishing "objective" truths?

It does not come easy. 1. It requires sufficient knowledge about a host of subjects, perhaps at least 20. 2) It required a lot of thinking, discussions and repeated analysis.

Would this statement be an objective truth or a subjective truth? Now I'm gonna have to consult Nagarjuna's Two Truths Madhyamaka Karika.
**grabs a large bottle of aspirin and a pint of whiskey**

Then you are done for. You will never get to truth.

 

[Howard Is]

And there was me thinking water is wet

Forgivable schoolboy error.
Water is just molecules. The qualia is ‘wet’.

 

[Nakosis]

Is it actually possible that you think you are in possession of a non-subjective means of establishing "objective" truths?

If so, that's just incredible. Jaw-dropping incredible. Is not every means of establishing truths ultimately subjective?

But...if you really do insist you have a non-subjective means of establishing "objective" truths then...

...by all means, precisely what is this miraculously non-subjective means of establishing "objective" truths?

A fact is something that’s indisputable, based on empirical research and quantifiable measures. Facts go beyond theories. They’re proven through calculation and experience, or they’re something that definitively occurred in the past.

Truth is entirely different; it may include fact, but it can also include belief. Oftentimes, people will accept things as true because they fall closer to their comfort zones, are assimilated easily into their comfort zones, or reflect their preconceived notions of reality.

Fact is indisputable. Truth is acceptable.

Comedian Ricky Gervais provides a great explanation of how a fact can be defined. (From this, we can infer the difference between fact and truth, which he refers to as belief.) “If we took every science book, and every fact, and destroyed them all, in a thousand years they’d all be back, because all the same tests would [produce] the same results.”
Two Realities: Truth and Fact (and They’re Not the Same)

So this is a view. Facts would be objective. The truth is accepted. What we individually accept is subjective.

Maybe some think fact when they use the word "truth" but in general usage it means something they've accepted as true.

 

[ZenMonkey]

Is it actually possible that you think you are in possession of a non-subjective means of establishing "objective" truths?

If so, that's just incredible. Jaw-dropping incredible. Is not every means of establishing truths ultimately subjective?

But...if you really do insist you have a non-subjective means of establishing "objective" truths then...

...by all means, precisely what is this miraculously non-subjective means of establishing "objective" truths?



_________________________
And now, for your amusement...

From the object of self, which relies on subjective experience to navigate existence maybe?

 

[Augustus]

Comedian Ricky Gervais provides a great explanation of how a fact can be defined... “If we took every science book, and every fact, and destroyed them all, in a thousand years they’d all be back, because all the same tests would [produce] the same results.”

That is remarkably naive and scientistic.

Some of the major flaws with this idea:

• The philosophy of science and scientific methodologies may not be recreated in exactly the same way.
• Science, to some extent, relies on subject variables and individual insights that are not simply the observation of objective fact and are thus not guaranteed to be recreated.
• Scientific discoveries build on other scientific discoveries and there is no guarantee rerunning history would produce the exact same combinations.
• Lots of published scientific research doesn't replicate.
• Incorrect findings that are considered 'true' lead to other incorrect findings which are often resilient to eradication and have far-reaching consequences.
• Small changes at any stage of the process could lead to highly different contingencies developing centuries down the line.
• etc.

It's likely that many of the same things would be discovered, particularly in the hard sciences, but the idea that everything currently considered 'scientific fact' would reemerge is facile and highly credulous.

 

[Sunstone]

A fact is something that’s indisputable, based on empirical research and quantifiable measures. Facts go beyond theories. They’re proven through calculation and experience, or they’re something that definitively occurred in the past.

Truth is entirely different; it may include fact, but it can also include belief. Oftentimes, people will accept things as true because they fall closer to their comfort zones, are assimilated easily into their comfort zones, or reflect their preconceived notions of reality.

Fact is indisputable. Truth is acceptable.

Comedian Ricky Gervais provides a great explanation of how a fact can be defined. (From this, we can infer the difference between fact and truth, which he refers to as belief.) “If we took every science book, and every fact, and destroyed them all, in a thousand years they’d all be back, because all the same tests would [produce] the same results.”
Two Realities: Truth and Fact (and They’re Not the Same)

So this is a view. Facts would be objective. The truth is accepted. What we individually accept is subjective.

Maybe some think fact when they use the word "truth" but in general usage it means something they've accepted as true.

What has your response to do with the OP? What is its relevance?

 

[Sunstone]

And there was me thinking water is wet

By definition, you thinking water is wet is a subjective thought.