What does 'objective' actually mean?

[expos4ever]

Depends on the statement. I can very easily satisfy the statement "I have a million dollars in my pocket".

I doubt it - I think while you could have a million in your pocket, it would be very hard for you to pull that off.

Which is why I think it is reasonable to believe Hitch has $ 20 in his pocket and it is unreasonable to believe you have a million in yours.

 

[Chriliman]

I think the reason such claims are rejected as evidence is not because a mere claim itself cannot be evidence (although it cannot be objective evidence), but because the content of the claim is implausible.

If a claim exists in objective reality it has to be considered as objective evidence. When a claim is made, the person making the claim puts his thoughts out into objective reality for all to see and analyze and either accept or criticize to their hearts desire.

 

[HitchSlap]

Here we disagree: I think that if the content of the claim is inherently plausible, the source of the claim is reliable, and the claimant has access to the information they would need to make the claim, we can say the claim is "evidence" for the factual truthfulness of the claim. Just not objective evidence.

In short, if the Pope turns to me and say "this morning I had an egg for breakfast", I think this indeed adds confidence to the hypothesis that the Pope, in fact, had an egg for breakfast.

I consider, plausibility, sources, and potential access to information, all to be independently objective propositions, and speak nothing of the veracity of the claim in and of itself.

 

[HitchSlap]

If a claim exists in objective reality it has to be considered as objective evidence.

Evidence

Of

What?!

 

[expos4ever]

If a claim exists in objective reality it has to be considered as objective evidence. When a claim is made, the person making the claim puts his thoughts out into objective reality for all to see and analyze and either accept or criticize to their hearts desire.

Yes, but all you are saying here is "it is an objective fact that such and such a claim has been made".

No one is disputing this.

 

[Chriliman]

Evidence

Of

What?!

Evidence of knowledge.

 

[expos4ever]

I consider, plausibility, sources, and potential access to information, all to be independently objective propositions, and speak nothing of the veracity of the claim in and of itself.

I disagree. Or I agree but would add you are framing things strangely here - the only way I would agree with you is if we are somehow denied this additional information.

Of course these are all independent propositions, but they certainly "bear" on the veracity of the claim. I suspect there is a misunderstanding - perhaps related to terminology - since I think it is self-evident that these factors - plausibility, sources, and potential access to information - clearly have relevance when assessing the veracity of the claim.

 

[HitchSlap]

I disagree. Or I agree but would add you are framing things strangely here - the only way I would agree with you is if we are somehow denied this additional information.

Of course these are all independent propositions, but they certainly "bear" on the veracity of the claim. I suspect there is a misunderstanding - perhaps related to terminology - since I think it is self-evident that these factors - plausibility, sources, and potential access to information - clearly have relevance when assessing the veracity of the claim.

Of course they're relevant in ascertaining a veracity of a claim.

However, it's Chrili's claim that a statement is evidence in and of itself - no other info. needed.

 

[HitchSlap]

Evidence of knowledge.

Nope, not even.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Here we disagree: I think that if the content of the claim is inherently plausible, the source of the claim is reliable, and the claimant has access to the information they would need to make the claim, we can say the claim is "evidence" for the factual truthfulness of the claim. Just not objective evidence.

I think we can agree that the reliability of the claimant and the access to information are both pieces of information outside the statement itself. And as such I'd say they shouldn't be included in whether or not the statement apart from that information is plausible. So that just leaves the statement itself.

In short, if the Pope turns to me and say "this morning I had an egg for breakfast", I think this indeed adds confidence to the hypothesis that the Pope, in fact, had an egg for breakfast.

I would agree that it's easier to assume something is true if it corresponds to what we think we know about reality.

But again, it depends on the statement itself. For example, I currently have a million dollars in my pocket right now. Notice that the statement doesn't include "legal tender" in it...

 

[Chriliman]

Yes, but all you are saying here is "it is an objective fact that such and such a claim has been made".

No one is disputing this.

Sure, but it does matter what the claim is claiming.

Some, if not many scientists would scoff at the idea that claims are objective evidence of knowledge.

 

[expos4ever]

Of course they're relevant in ascertaining a veracity of a claim.

However, it's Chrili's claim that a statement is evidence in and of itself - no other info. needed.

I find Chrili's position hard to understand.

 

[expos4ever]

Sure, but it does matter what the claim is claiming.

Some, if not many scientists would scoff at the idea that claims are objective evidence of knowledge.

And I suggest they are right to "scoff" - the only thing we can say is "objective" when someone makes a claim is that it is objectively clue that a claim has been made. I get the impression that you think that the mere fact of the claim being made is objective evidence for the claim being factually true. I think that this clearly not the case, although I have been arguing that a mere claim can be "evidence" - just not objective evidence - in support of what the claim asserts.

 

[Chriliman]

I find Chrili's position hard to understand.

I appreciate the effort in trying to understand

It can all be summed up in this logical statement:

If truth claims exist in objective reality, then they are objective evidence of knowledge that can help determine what's actually true.

 

[expos4ever]

So that just leaves the statement itself.

Well, of course I agree with you; however I would never think to consider the statement itself "in isolation".

But again, it depends on the statement itself. For example, I currently have a million dollars in my pocket right now. Notice that the statement doesn't include "legal tender" in it...

I think we are really on the same page about this.

 

[Chriliman]

And I suggest they are right to "scoff" - the only thing we can say is "objective" when someone makes a claim is that it is objectively clue that a claim has been made. I get the impression that you think that the mere fact of the claim being made is objective evidence for the claim being factually true.

Clearly not the case, I agree.

I think that this clearly not the case, although I have been arguing that a mere claim can be "evidence" - just not objective evidence - in support of what the claim asserts.

I agree. A claim cannot count as objective evidence of what it's asserting, but it is objective evidence of knowledge.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Well, of course I agree with you; however I would never think to consider the statement itself "in isolation".

I do when I'm dealing with people online, not so much in face-to-face communication.

I think we are really on the same page about this.

Terrific.

 

[HitchSlap]

If truth claims exist in objective reality, then they are objective evidence of knowledge that can help determine what's actually true.

This is word salad. It imparts nothing of value.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I agree. A claim cannot count as objective evidence of what it's asserting, but it is objective evidence of knowledge.

Knowledge of what?

 

[Chriliman]

I agree. A claim cannot count as objective evidence of what it's asserting

Actually I would further clarify and say claims can be objective evidence of what they're asserting, for instance:

I am making a claim.

The above is both a claim and objective evidence that I just made a claim.