You MAY Be Ridiculed If You....

[Willamena]

Yes.

Are truths factual?

-Q

Truth

 

[Rakhel]

I was always under the impression the truth was subjective rather than objective

 

[Mister Emu]

1. Talking with authority on a matter of science when your information is patently incorrect. If you want to discuss science than actually do research on the topic. There is no excuse for not having the correct information, if you have access to this forum you also have access to the rest of the information on the net.

There is conflicting information on the internet.

2. Continuing to talk with authority once the errors in your information. See above.

This sentence is incomplete.

3. Quoting religious sites that discuss science eg. answers in genesis. These sites have an agenda. If you want to quote some scientific sources find a secular site.

If someone has inaccurate information, they should be given fair chance to see both sides...

4. Logical Fallacies. This is what a logical fallacy is

Some people are not schooled in debate, no need to ridicule, just point out the fallacy.

6. Preaching the "truth". Preaching is against the forum rules and truth is subjective.

Truth is not subjective.

9. Quoting a "professional" who is discussing something outside of there individual area of expertise. Examples of this is a geologist talking about chemistry. This also applies to famous people, they aren't experts. This also applies to quoting a piece of research that is more than 5-10 years old. Science is moving so fast that data gets outdated very quickly.

The last one seems a little extreme, not everyone can keep absolutely up to date, if there is new research that you know about just point it out to them...

11. Gay bashing. We have a wide range of people who of different gender identities on this forum. This is outright hate speech, keep your opinions to yourself.

What do you mean by bashing?

14. Single line posts eg that's ridiculous. If you would do not believe what is being said is correct than give your reasons.

Some posts don't deserve the time it takes to create a thorough response.

Both perspectives are true to the each individual. Subjectively the water feels different to both people. Once the temperature has been taken it can be objectively said that the water is that temperature.

This shows that truth is subjective how?

The water is x temperature, objective. That the person outside feels warmth from the water, objective. That the person inside does not feel warmth from the water, objective.

All truths are objective. Not all statements are true or false.

 

[Revoltingest]

Truth

Meh....both truth & facts are over-rated. It's not just that they're both subjective & unreliable...
...the worst thing about'm is that people think that just citing one comprises a cogent argument.

 

[Willamena]

Meh....both truth & facts are over-rated. It's not just that they're both subjective & unreliable...
...the worst thing about'm is that people think that just citing one comprises a cogent argument.

It's the only thing that does.

(That's why discussions are better than arguments.)

 

[Revoltingest]

That's why discussions are better than arguments.

True dat!

 

[The Neo Nerd]

This shows that truth is subjective how?

The water is x temperature, objective. That the person outside feels warmth from the water, objective. That the person inside does not feel warmth from the water, objective.

All truths are objective. Not all statements are true or false.

The outside person feels warmth. Objective Fact

The inside person feels no warmth. Objective Fact

The water is x temperature. Objective Fact

The water is warm. The truth to the outside person

The water isn't warm. The truth to the inside person

The warmth as felt by the two people whilst being true to them are subjective.

-Q

 

[Peacewise]

There is ongoing discussion on the variety of truth which covers the ground of whether truth is objective truth, subjective truth, relative truth and absolute truth.

Seems to me that all four of these types of truth exist.
Truth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Truth (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Have fun.

 

[Willamena]

The warmth as felt by the two people whilst being true to them are subjective.

-Q

No. Relative.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

No. Relative.

The temperature of the water cannot be considered objective as their perception is affected by the previous temperatures that both were exposed to. It can't be objective since both people have different baselines for the determination of warmth.

For the perception of warmth to be objective both must do the same test and come up with the same result. The test must also be free from bias which clearly is not the case.

Something cannot be considered objective if the results are based upon perception.

-Q

 

[Riverwolf]

Does quoting an atheist who is talking about religion count?

If the atheist in question hasn't really studied religion all that extensively, and if said atheist's field of expertise is something else, then :yes:. If the atheist has studied religion and/or a particular religion, then :no:.

Religion is a field of study just like any other. A person who is not an expert on it is, therefore, not an authority on it.

The same would be true of a religious person talking with authority on a religion he hasn't studied extensively. (If memory serves me right, I've been guilty of this.) For example, I'm a Hindu. Therefore, I'm somewhat an authority on Hinduism, but not on, say, Islam. I certainly have my opinions about Islam based on some observations and rudimentary study on it, but not to the point where I can speak with authority on what it's about.

 

[Riverwolf]

Yes, truth is relative. But it's necessarily objective. The temperatures relative to each individual are true and actual.

Relative not equal subjective.

Huh... relative, not subjective...

Thanks a bunch. I'll have to remember that.

 

[Sunstone]

Objectivity appears to be a metaphysical supposition based on the experience of intersubjective verifiability.

 

[blackout]

MAY as in MIGHT ... as in you "POTENTIALLY COULD BE"?
*looks for the "blank stare" smiley*

or MAY as in "IT HAS BEEN DEEMED ALLOWABLE".

and, If it (ridicule) has been DEEMED ALLOWABLE...
then, by whom?

 

[Willamena]

For the perception of warmth to be objective both must do the same test and come up with the same result. The test must also be free from bias which clearly is not the case.

There is nothing in the definition of objective that suggests that they must have the same perception per this scenario (which is technically impossible), only that they each have an actual perception. If for one it's actually warm, then for him it's really warm, it's truly warm, it's factually warm, and that it's warm is an objective assessment relative to him.

 

[mho123]

OK let's talk truth.

There are two people one is inside a mountain cabin and one is outside in the snow.

There is a bucket of water in the cabin, the person in the cabin will put his hand in the water and say it is room temperature. The person from outside will put his hand in the water and say it is warm/hot.

Both perspectives are true to the each individual. Subjectively the water feels different to both people. Once the temperature has been taken it can be objectively said that the water is that temperature.

-Q

In the end there is only one truth and that is the temp of the water .
The persoon outside who feels that it is hot is just being misguided through the change of the sensibility of the receptors on his skin . He feels it's hot while it is not . So he is wrong . If there wasn't a thermometer to measure it we wouldn't know who is right who is wrong .
So what do we do ? We develope technieques instruments rules to be able to measure the real temp of the water . In this case thermometer and Celsius / Fahrenheit scale .
And that is called science . The one and only truth .

 

[mho123]

There has been an uprising of sentiment against atheists and their ridiculing of theists.

Now i personally believe that these sentiments are correct, as atheists we can be quite nasty.

However the following is a list of behaviours that i believe will RIGHTLY engender ridicule if done in the open debate forums.

1. Talking with authority on a matter of science when your information is patently incorrect. If you want to discuss science than actually do research on the topic. There is no excuse for not having the correct information, if you have access to this forum you also have access to the rest of the information on the net.

2. Continuing to talk with authority once the errors in your information. See above.

3. Quoting religious sites that discuss science eg. answers in genesis. These sites have an agenda. If you want to quote some scientific sources find a secular site.

4. Logical Fallacies. This is what a logical fallacy is

Fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

5. Continuing with a logical fallacy once it has been pointed out. This is ignorance.

6. Preaching the "truth". Preaching is against the forum rules and truth is subjective.

7. Saying the theory of evolution (ToE) states that humans evolved from monkeys. See point 1.

8. Fundy Font Sans Serif. Seriously people this makes your posts very hard to read.

9. Quoting a "professional" who is discussing something outside of there individual area of expertise. Examples of this is a geologist talking about chemistry. This also applies to famous people, they aren't experts. This also applies to quoting a piece of research that is more than 5-10 years old. Science is moving so fast that data gets outdated very quickly.

10. Stating that the ToE discusses the origins of life. The ToE is not concerned with the origins of life. This is abiogenesis, here is some info on it:

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Once again see point 1.

11. Gay bashing. We have a wide range of people who of different gender identities on this forum. This is outright hate speech, keep your opinions to yourself.

12. Threatening the wrath of your god. pffffff.

13. Generalising. Now i know both atheists and theists alike are guilty of this.

14. Single line posts eg that's ridiculous. If you would do not believe what is being said is correct than give your reasons.

Now i know that atheists and theists alike are guilty of these.

So please people think before you open your mouths, don't reject something outright because it doesn't fit with your world view.

-Q

if you are trying to teach religious people how to debate ,, good luck ,, it is absolutely not going to work .
Religious people are brainwashed/ indoctrinated people . They are incapable of logic and reasoning .
I have not yet met a religious persoon who would be objectively look at the subject .
They follow their parents / friends / countries religion blindly ( except for a tiny minority ) blindly and are totally convinced the they really thought anout it and made a choice while more than 95% follow the same religion of their parents / country etc .
What am I getting at ?
A religious person is totally convinced that he / she is right and incapable of logical thinking and reasoning . They are here at this form just to convince others to turn to their beliefs . They don't seek the truth . They pretend to be doing so just to food for discussion so that they can involve others in it with the hope of converting one more person to their believes . No will to learn . Not capable to learn . Brainwashed so badly that their logic , common sense doesn't function at all .
You could be talking to walls / debating with ants and you would have better chance of a constructive debate .
But good luck ,, a brave attempt .

 

[blackout]

In the end there is only one truth and that is the temp of the water .
The persoon outside who feels that it is hot is just being misguided through the change of the sensibility of the receptors on his skin . He feels it's hot while it is not . So he is wrong . If there wasn't a thermometer to measure it we wouldn't know who is right who is wrong .
So what do we do ? We develope technieques instruments rules to be able to measure the real temp of the water . In this case thermometer and Celsius / Fahrenheit scale .
And that is called science . The one and only truth .

no no. HE feels... experiences 'hot', and that IS a truth.

Hot, is actually a concept relative to the subject.

Numbers do not define "hot".
They define "temperature".

 

[The Neo Nerd]

You are ascribing attributes to the bucket which you can not.

There are four objects in this little story; the cabin, the bucket of water, person A and person B.

The following are the facts that we can ascribe to each of the object.

The Cabin:

- Surrounded by snow
- Contains person A and a bucket of room temperature water

The Bucket:

- In the cabin
- Contains water that is the same temperature as the ambient temperature of the cabin.
- Has had two hands submerged in it

Person A: (I'm going to call him Henry)

- Is in the cabin
- Has submerged his hand in the bucket of water
- Perceives the water as room temperature

Person B: (I'm going to call her Liza)

- Was outside the cabin in the snow
- Has entered the cabin
- Has submerged her hand in the bucket of water
- Perceives the water as warm

Feel free to correct/add any facts here

There is nothing in the definition of objective that suggests that they must have the same perception per this scenario (which is technically impossible), only that they each have an actual perception.

If you look further down the page you will see that it says

Free from bias in judgment

The warmth of the water is based on perception, this is evidenced by the fact that Henry does not perceive the water as warm. Considering the precedent temperatures of the peoples skin, it can not be said that their perception is without bias.

The definition of subjective is below

subjective: Definition, Synonyms from Answers.com

If for one it's actually warm, then for him it's really warm, it's truly warm, it's factually warm

No the fact here is that the person perceives the water as warm

and that it's warm is an objective assessment relative to him.

Nope if it's relative to him then it can't exactly be objective.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

if you are trying to teach religious people how to debate ,, good luck ,, it is absolutely not going to work .
Religious people are brainwashed/ indoctrinated people . They are incapable of logic and reasoning .
I have not yet met a religious persoon who would be objectively look at the subject .
They follow their parents / friends / countries religion blindly ( except for a tiny minority ) blindly and are totally convinced the they really thought anout it and made a choice while more than 95% follow the same religion of their parents / country etc .
What am I getting at ?
A religious person is totally convinced that he / she is right and incapable of logical thinking and reasoning . They are here at this form just to convince others to turn to their beliefs . They don't seek the truth . They pretend to be doing so just to food for discussion so that they can involve others in it with the hope of converting one more person to their believes . No will to learn . Not capable to learn . Brainwashed so badly that their logic , common sense doesn't function at all .
You could be talking to walls / debating with ants and you would have better chance of a constructive debate .
But good luck ,, a brave attempt .

13. Generalising. Now i know both atheists and theists alike are guilty of this.

Just so no one accuses me of hypocrisy.

-Q