Objective Truth

[Cynic]

I'm getting a headache thinking about this, but please debate. I am very open to being wrong with the following thesis.

Here is my thesis:

It is impossible to form a truth without forming a bias at the same time. Truth is therefore fundementally incompatible with objectivity.

Truth, from dictionary.com, is defined as:
1. the true or actual state of a matter
2. conformity with fact or reality
3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like:

What does it mean to be objective?
To approach things from an unbiased perspective.

However, when we form a truth, we fundementally form a bias.

Example:
Here is a statement that we all beleive to be true, and factual:
The earth revolves around the sun.

However in making this assertion (based on evidence), we still become biased or prejudice against any ideas that are incompatible with the statement.
(i.e. The sun revolves around the earth).

IMO, to be objective, all possible viewpoints must be presented, and without making an assertion that any one of them is true. One must neither think of both statements as right or wrong, but be open to any possibilities. Once we make an assertion (form a truth), we immediately step over the line of objectivity. Of course subjectivity is inescapable, and it would be illogical to never form a truth.

 

[cturne]

I have no desire to debate you, but I just noticed that the little ads that appear at the top of the screen on this post are ads relating to finding sex offenders and sex offender registrys! How very odd..... maybe it's the signature?

 

[cturne]

And now it's domestic violence and battered women - curiouser and curiouser....

 

[Random]

Experience on RF has educated me to the effect that I now must formally abstain from and debate or discussion involving the words "Objective", "Subjective" and "Truth" in the one thread. Sorry, it's for my own mental health...

 

[Willamena]

It is impossible to form a truth without forming a bias at the same time. Truth is therefore fundementally incompatible with objectivity.

Truth, from dictionary.com, is defined as:
1. the true or actual state of a matter
2. conformity with fact or reality
3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like:

What does it mean to be objective?
To approach things from an unbiased perspective.

However, when we form a truth, we fundementally form a bias.

Example:
Here is a statement that we all beleive to be true, and factual:
The earth revolves around the sun.

However in making this assertion (based on evidence), we still become biased or prejudice against any ideas that are incompatible with the statement.
(i.e. The sun revolves around the earth).

IMO, to be objective, all possible viewpoints must be presented, and without making an assertion that any one of them is true. One must neither think of both statements as right or wrong, but be open to any possibilities. Once we make an assertion (form a truth), we immediately step over the line of objectivity. Of course subjectivity is inescapable, and it would be illogical to never form a truth.

We don't "form" truths, they exist and we acknowledge their existence as true. Our bias is irrelevant; statements that are incompatible (I assume you mean contradict it) are not true (do not represent a truth) if they don't describe reality.

The sun *does* revolve around the earth if we put that in context, and include that context in our statement of 'what is true'. "The sun revolves around the earth from the subject perspective of an observer on the earth."

 

[Cynic]

We don't "form" truths, they exist and we acknowledge their existence as true. Our bias is irrelevant; statements that are incompatible (I assume you mean contradict it) are not true (do not represent a truth) if they don't describe reality. The sun *does* revolve around the earth if we put that in context, and include that context in our statement of 'what is true'. "The sun revolves around the earth from the subject perspective of an observer on the earth."

I would, in a sense, agree with your arguement... But I find it somewhat conflicts with my perspective that:
Truth is not an objective property of anything, it is how we catagorize information, (i.e. Truth is not a property of the earth revolving around the sun).
The universe is a plethora of information, and everything just "is". Truth is not part of the information itself. It only exists in our minds as a catagorization or label we place on information. Like good and evil, we catagorize what is true, and what isn't.
Well, I'll have to think this through, I'm getting another headache...

 

[Kungfuzed]

What does it mean to be objective?
To approach things from an unbiased perspective.

I don't think I entirely agree with your definition of objective. To me, objective means everyone can see it. It is not subject to opinion because it's right in front of everyone in plain sight. For example, right now everyone here in my apartment right now can objectively verify that my HP printer is sitting on the table. Even if you have a biased perspective there is no denying that it is there, you just won't like it. You might try to subjectively imagine that it's not a printer even as I print out this page in front of you but that's just willful ignorance. Suppose I invite someone over to my apartment who is from a very technologically challenged part of the world and has never seen a printer before. He may stare at it and wonder what it is, but objectively he will still see that this is a box that makes paper and writing come out of it and I can open it up and show him how it works.

On the other hand, subjective, to me, is that which only the individual can experience.

 

[Willamena]

I would, in a sense, agree with your arguement... But I find it somewhat conflicts with my perspective that:
Truth is not an objective property of anything...

You are right about that: it is not a property, any more than existence is; rather, it's a characteristic of existence. Its only purpose is to describe the veracity of existence.

A thing's "existence" is a piece of information that we can talk about ("Existence exists."). Everything objective to us shares that quality --everything that is is a piece of information to us.

...it is how we catagorize information.

I would say rather that it is a piece of information that we categorize. It is a word, a symbol, that represents our acknowledgement of the veracity of (the existence of) a thing.

I put "the existence of" in brackets because it's superfluous. A thing is in existence or it's not a thing; and it's objective, otherwise it wouldn't be 'a thing', it'd be me.

Truth is a bit of data about things, and that's what makes truth also objective. Things are objective, things exist, and truth is a characteristic of existence.

The universe is a plethora of information, and everything just "is". Truth is not part of the information itself. It only exists in our minds as a catagorization or label we place on information. Like good and evil, we catagorize what is true, and what isn't.
Well, I'll have to think this through, I'm getting another headache...

Try this on for size:

The universe is a plethora of information, and everything just 'is'. (That is the objective perspective in a nutshell, nicely worded; well done). Information exists for us as bits of knowledge. Knowledge informs us (forms our minds from within) with its existence. Truth is a part of that information.

The universe for us is all that we can know and all the potential information yet to be known --that's what the universe is. Anything else --things we cannot know, like the supernatural --is objectively superfluous (cool word); we don't count it as a part of the objective universe, as information --we cannot, because it's unknowable, unverifiable, etc. Furthermore, if we (intelligent beings everywhere) go (are exterminated) that information, the universe, goes with us (i.e. there would be nobody left to 'know' it). All that would be left is a hunking mess of matter and energy.

 

[Cynic]

You are right about that: it is not a property, any more than existence is; rather, it's a characteristic of existence. Its only purpose is to describe the veracity of existence.

A thing's "existence" is a piece of information that we can talk about ("Existence exists."). Everything objective to us shares that quality --everything that is is a piece of information to us.


I would say rather that it is a piece of information that we categorize. It is a word, a symbol, that represents our acknowledgement of the veracity of (the existence of) a thing.

I put "the existence of" in brackets because it's superfluous. A thing is in existence or it's not a thing; and it's objective, otherwise it wouldn't be 'a thing', it'd be me.

Truth is a bit of data about things, and that's what makes truth also objective. Things are objective, things exist, and truth is a characteristic of existence.


Try this on for size:

The universe is a plethora of information, and everything just 'is'. (That is the objective perspective in a nutshell, nicely worded; well done). Information exists for us as bits of knowledge. Knowledge informs us (forms our minds from within) with its existence. Truth is a part of that information.

We don't have a full concept of truth at a very young age. Very young children believe anything. However truth is a concept we quickly learn as we experience life. A child will wait for santa every christmas night, and eventually come to understand that he isn't coming down the chimney. Truth does not yet exist untill we learn the concept of what is true and what isn't.

You may agree that, The earth is round
But I know that the earth is not round, it is slightly oval as it bulges outwards at the equator.

I believe that truth is ultimately subject to our interpretation, and the "is" of the plethora of information is never fully reachable.

If was married, and my wife cheated on me, is that adultery? In todays society, the answer would be yes. However there was a society that had no conception of adultery (Sparta), and sharing ones wife was not necassarily a moral issue.

How we define truth or reality is determined by (a) information, and experiences (b) meanings and symbolism –-includes biases from social conditioning--, and (c) logical reasoning.

The universe for us is all that we can know and all the potential information yet to be known --that's what the universe is. Anything else --things we cannot know, like the supernatural --is objectively superfluous (cool word); we don't count it as a part of the objective universe, as information --we cannot, because it's unknowable, unverifiable, etc. Furthermore, if we (intelligent beings everywhere) go (are exterminated) that information, the universe, goes with us (i.e. there would be nobody left to 'know' it). All that would be left is a hunking mess of matter and energy.

It's interesting that humans are made up of the elements from stars and exploding super novas, everything from water to iron. We are ultimatley a piece of the universe, and as we observe and learn the mysteries that surround us, it is as though the universe is coming to understand itself.

 

[Willamena]

Truth does not yet exist untill we learn the concept of what is true and what isn't.

You may agree that, The earth is round
But I know that the earth is not round, it is slightly oval as it bulges outwards at the equator.

A characteristic is a concept, yes, the idea or image of a thing. Characteristics are something we observe of what goes on in the world around us. Pieces of information. Truth is a characteristic that describes the veracity of existence.

It is objective; that doesn't mean it's not in our minds. The whole universe, as information, is in our minds --outside of that there is only a fusion (or perhaps confusion) of matter and energy. That might need some explaining (start with Plato, if you're curious).

"Objective" is what is exterior to me. "I" am not my mind or my body --those are both exterior to me, in that they are something I can observe, that I can know. I am something else, a concept if you like that I set up to distinguish "me" from them. Hence they are my property, possessions of mine: my mind, my body. What is "me" is the "entity" that owns them.

We know what we can know, and that's what we can know. Truth is one of the things we can know. If I determine the earth is round, and you demonstrate to me how it is oval, then that becomes truth for me, too, and the old knowledge gets discarded (or used in a different way). And that's okay; truth is still objective. The child unable to comprehend the truth, or the person unable to communicate the truth, do not reflect at all on the truth, just on themselves, on their own limitations.

I believe that truth is ultimately subject to our interpretation, and the "is" of the plethora of information is never fully reachable.

Everything is subject to our interpretation.

It's interesting that humans are made up of the elements from stars and exploding super novas, everything from water to iron. We are ultimatley a piece of the universe, and as we observe and learn the mysteries that surround us, it is as though the universe is coming to understand itself.

Oh, just so. :yes:

 

[Engyo]

One possible statement of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle:

The observer interacts with the observed through the process of observation.

 

[Sunstone]

Objective truth might be more of a hypothesis than a reality. About the best we can do, perhaps, is to arrive at intersubjectively verifiable truths. Those might or might not be objective, and we will possibly never know whether they are or aren't.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

One must neither think of both statements as right or wrong, but be open to any possibilities. Once we make an assertion (form a truth), we immediately step over the line of objectivity. Of course subjectivity is inescapable, and it would be illogical to never form a truth.

This is not objectivity. It's distraction. Objectivity is nothing more than placing value upon truth. While certainty is illusive, understanding is not. Objectivity is the path to greater understanding. But understanding the way things are, as opposed to how we wish them to be, we increase our ability to fulfill our needs, desires, and instincts... and to survive.

 

[Cynic]

This is not objectivity. It's distraction. Objectivity is nothing more than placing value upon truth. While certainty is illusive, understanding is not. Objectivity is the path to greater understanding. But understanding the way things are, as opposed to how we wish them to be, we increase our ability to fulfill our needs, desires, and instincts... and to survive.

In the sciences, objectivity is neutral. Its a good way of gathering information without getting our biases or emotions involved. When our biases get involved, the following conclusion of our studies and experiments will also be biased.
I may have used a bad example in the OP when relating truth to a bias.

 

[Fluffy]

When we say "this is true" we are approximising our meaning. What we actually mean is "I think this is true". I can therefore never state what is true but only what I think is true.

It seems fairly evident that whilst "what is true" can be covered by the term "truth", "what I think is true" should not be. Normally we define "what I think is true" to be either knowledge or belief but either way we are making a clear distinction between truth and our perception of it.

So truth is as objective as an orange or the moon. But belief is as subjective as our sensations of those objects.

It doesn't really make sense to talk about "subjective truth" because truth is inherently objective. I believe that what gives arise to our assumption that such a thing exists is our failure to realise the above approximation.

 

[Sunstone]

When we say "this is true" we are approximising our meaning. What we actually mean is "I think this is true". I can therefore never state what is true but only what I think is true.

It seems fairly evident that whilst "what is true" can be covered by the term "truth", "what I think is true" should not be. Normally we define "what I think is true" to be either knowledge or belief but either way we are making a clear distinction between truth and our perception of it.

So truth is as objective as an orange or the moon. But belief is as subjective as our sensations of those objects.

It doesn't really make sense to talk about "subjective truth" because truth is inherently objective. I believe that what gives arise to our assumption that such a thing exists is our failure to realise the above approximation.

Obviously, the word "truth" can mean more than one thing. The sense in which you're using it seems to be that a fact and a truth are the same thing. "The orange exists" is a fact, and in your sense of "truth", it is also a truth. Am I understanding you here?

 

[Willamena]

Objective truth might be more of a hypothesis than a reality. About the best we can do, perhaps, is to arrive at intersubjectively verifiable truths. Those might or might not be objective, and we will possibly never know whether they are or aren't.

You are allocating objectivity to a 'thing' apart from us --that's not right; it belongs to us. Reclaim it --grab onto it, and hold it as a 'thing' of your own. They *are* objective, to you (to me, to him).

Objectivity is a "to you" thing --that's the only context for it. If it isn't *you* then it's objective to you.

 

[Willamena]

When we say "this is true" we are approximising our meaning. What we actually mean is "I think this is true". I can therefore never state what is true but only what I think is true.

Is that true?

If you relegate what you say to "I only think it's true," then I have no real reason to believe anything you say. If, on the other hand, you claim it as "true," then I know that you believe it, therefore I can believe it too (after assessing it). What does that say about "the truth we speak" (as opposed to the truth)?

 

[Fluffy]

Obviously, the word "truth" can mean more than one thing. The sense in which you're using it seems to be that a fact and a truth are the same thing. "The orange exists" is a fact, and in your sense of "truth", it is also a truth. Am I understanding you here?

The meaning of the statement "the orange exists" is truth (if it is true) but the statement itself is simply a perception of truth because a statement cannot exist independently of the person who stated it.

The only time there is a complete correlation between truth and our perception of it is when we can be said to know something. There is obviously a great debate over whether that is even possible but usually we are happy to admit the possibility that our beliefs might be wrong and therefore we must only be stating what we think to be true and not what is true (otherwise we could never be wrong).

Is that true?

If you relegate what you say to "I only think it's true," then I have no real reason to believe anything you say. If, on the other hand, you claim it as "true," then I know that you believe it, therefore I can believe it too (after assessing it). What does that say about "the truth we speak" (as opposed to the truth)?

Why do you not know that I believe what I think to be true? Surely if I say that I think X is true then you know that I believe X to be true. There is no difference in the meaning between the statements "X is true" and "I think X is true". That was my only point. The question of whether you should believe me is a seperate issue and not one I can do justice but clearly unchanging across the 2 phrases.

 

[Willamena]

Why do you not know that I believe what I think to be true? Surely if I say that I think X is true then you know that I believe X to be true. There is no difference in the meaning between the statements "X is true" and "I think X is true". That was my only point. The question of whether you should believe me is a seperate issue and not one I can do justice but clearly unchanging across the 2 phrases.

Well, there is a difference. The statement "X is true" says that you believe it, and the statement "I think that X is true" says that you possibly have reason to believe it ...someday ...maybe.

The question of whether I should believe you sheds light on the nature of "the truth you speak".