Atheism and nihilism

[Ken-1122]

Nope. Each epistemological system of justification carries with it a different praxis affecting how the system (or framework) will justify and appropriate various axioms and propositions.

But somehow, this point almost never, ever is addressed..................by anyone here. Like, almost nobody.

Nobody has answered your question? Well let me give it a shot.
My epistemological assumptions is based on what make sense to me. So for you to ask me to reevaluate my epistemological assumptions (post #807), you are asking me to reevaluate what make sense to me; this makes no sense. I have no reason to assume that which does not make sense is true. Does this sound reasonable to you?

 

[Ken-1122]

No, I am in-tune with the Holy Spirit.

Why ask a question if you already have your own answer?

 

[Kylie]

These rejoinder questions of yours have nothing to do with what I just said, Kylie. It's irrelevant.

No it's not. You said that no one is asking me to believe without evidence. I'm just pointing out that I have been told many times, including here on this site, to believe without evidence.

What does this metaphysical point have to do with the epistemological praxis inquiry I posed to you?

Just showing you an example of the sort of thing I have been told which contradicts your claim that no one is asking me to believe without evidence.

They probably should. Do you want me to tell them that? .... I can.

lol, good luck with that.

What I just said in my previous post about reevaluating your epistemological framework has essentially nothing to do with opening your mind to certain metaphysics. To reevaluate your epistemological position and understanding doesn't require anyone to assume another worldview .........................................................

So a person can reevaluate their entire method of knowledge acquisition without adopting another worldview? Seems to me that even if we aren't talking about switching to a different faith, we are still faced with a person who changes the way they get knowledge, and if that's the case, they will have to consider everything they have learnt with their old method to be suspect. After all, as far as they know, the knowledge they got the old way is flawed. How can that not be accompanied by a change in their worldview?

 

[Leaf473]

According to the below link, that which is objective can’t involve interior sensations, that’s subjective. What you have is subjective meaning and purpose to life
Difference Between Objective and Subjective | Meaning, Objective vs Subjective Examples

I think there's a difference between an objective reality and objective evidence for that reality.
for example, I believe we both agree that humans have the ability to choose.
that is an objective reality, a fact.
but evidence for our ability to choose is interior sensations, something subjective.

Interior sensations are subjective.

true!
it seems to me, then, that if we allow interior sensations as evidence of our ability to choose, we would also allow it as evidence for the existence of God.

I find both positions to be equal. However they should both have a conversation and try to convince the other of their position.

morality based on people's values, then, would be highly variable, imo.
it would vary from one person to the next, and from one culture to the next.

many atheists are in favor of this approach to morality, I think.

as a society moves to greater freedom and openness, which many atheists encourage, the moral thinking moves ever closer to moral nihilism (everyone just do what seems right in the moment), imo.

I’m still waiting for you to explain what you mean by objective purpose and objective meaning to life. If it means to have purpose and meaning in your life assigned by someone else, then that is something I do not have; nor want.

I believe you had said earlier words to the effect that meaning and purpose for life was subjective for you, not objective.

my sense was that we were using those words the same way,
a subjective meaning and purpose would be something originating inside of you,
an objective meaning and purpose would be something from outside of yourself, either a person or an intelligence of some sort.

are we on the same page there?

so, subjective meaning and purpose to life is often called existential nihilism, I believe.

That link you provided is very long. Can you point out where in the link it says this?

sure, it's in the second paragraph

"Most commonly, nihilism refers to existential nihilism, according to which life is believed to be without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.[4] Moral nihilism asserts that nothing is morally right or wrong. "

Nihilism - Wikipedia

I’ll admit I haven’t been looking at what other atheists have been posting. Morality a personal choice? What does that mean?

I think morality being a personal choice would mean that everyone decides for themselves what's right or wrong.

that's not the same as a society not having any laws.
it would just mean that any laws a society makes would be based on efficiency, like making traffic flow smoothly, as opposed to morality, like unborn people having the right to life.

The problem with Wikipedia is anybody can post there; you don’t have to be a lexicographer or anything. Can you find a definition in an actual dictionary that says this?

while it's true that anyone can edit Wikipedia, it's also true that there are many people who monitor the subjects they are interested in and keep them on track.
at least that's been my experience with Wikipedia.
it's also more accessible than many other websites.

I mean this as politely as possible, but if you object to the Wikipedia definition, why are you waiting until now to voice your objection?

from what I have seen, atheists tend to say that there is nothing outside of the individual as far as morality or purpose in life.
that "nothingness" doesn't mean that the atheist has no preferences, if a soup tastes better hot they want it hot.
that "nothingness" also sounds to me like nihilism, though I could be wrong about that.

people who make their living in the philosophy world take the situation I described above and write pages like this one, imo.
"On the one hand, if he is weakly constituted he may fall victim to despair in the face of nihilism, the recognition that life has no intrinsic meaning."

Existentialism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

I don’t agree that to be the definition of Nihilism. Take the word “objective” out, then you might have a point.

did you want to answer this question?
"what positive term shall we use to refer to someone who says that life has no objective meaning or purpose?"

That’s different! Belief in your God requires faith, it doesn’t require an act of faith to know I control my thoughts, all that is needed is for me to know what is going on inside my head.

I think it's very much the same!
"what is going on inside my head" is why I say there is a God.

Or perhaps you have a flawed idea of what it means to be atheist; you speak to a few and assume they are all that way, then when you speak to someone that is not, you assume this person is an outlier.

as I said at the beginning of our discussion, the term "atheist" only says what a person is not, it does not say what a person is.

I have spoken to more than a few atheists.
if your beliefs and approach are different from the majority of the ones I've spoken to, that's fine.

I will respond to the rest later

cool!

 

[Leaf473]

(I forgot to say earlier that I'm back and thank you for waiting.
we got my mom settled into a nice memory Care facility.
she doesn't know where she is or why she's there, but that's pretty standard for someone with memory issues!)

The fact that someone claiming to be you logged onto a computer and connected to my computer. That is objective evidence outside of myself IMO

I agree that it is objective evidence, but is it clearly evidence of consciousness?

I assume we agree that computers are not conscious.

I don't think you have any way of knowing whether I am a conscious being like yourself or a computer imitating a conscious being.

I think in philosophy this is called the problem of other minds.

I could be tricked, I could be wrong; if I am it wouldn’t make a bit of difference; I’m still having conversation and learning. I have nothing invested in if you are an actual human or not, yet I still have no reason to assume you are not human

I believe the question was whether you had objective evidence that I am a conscious being.

I agree you have objective evidence, I disagree that it is necessarily evidence of consciousness.

I don’t have answers to those questions, all I know is that I have conscious, and I feel justified in assuming everyone else does as well.

I think those are really important questions, you may wish to ponder them a bit.

and of course, I think a person is welcome to assume whatever they wish.

Why would I need to do that? Why would I need to do a test to convince myself that a rock is not aware of his surrounds, but a person is?

if you are like most atheists that I have interacted with, you would want to do experiments because experimentation is one of the main features of science, and most atheists are into science.

atheist in general are uncomfortable with hypotheses about God because experiments cannot be performed to test them.

again, these are generalities.
they may not apply to you.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Nobody has answered your question? Well let me give it a shot.

I didn't ask any question here. Kylie did. I was merely trying to answer her question.

My epistemological assumptions is based on what make sense to me. So for you to ask me to reevaluate my epistemological assumptions (post #807), you are asking me to reevaluate what make sense to me; this makes no sense. I have no reason to assume that which does not make sense is true. Does this sound reasonable to you?

To a limited degree it does. But are you able to place a label then on your own epistemological position? It almost sounds like you go in for Coherency Theory rather than what a large number of atheists here go in for, which is Moderate to Strong Foundationalism.

So, yes. I was asking Kylie to 're-evaluate' her epistemological framework, the one by which she supposedly 'measures' how the world works around her along with the conceptual substance of Christianity.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No it's not. You said that no one is asking me to believe without evidence. I'm just pointing out that I have been told many times, including here on this site, to believe without evidence.

Well.................if they're doing so, I'd say they need to stop.

Just showing you an example of the sort of thing I have been told which contradicts your claim that no one is asking me to believe without evidence.

Ok. That's fine. For my part, I wouldn't ask you to believe without evidence. But I would ask you to re-evaluate your epistemological framework and its collected assumptions and points of praxis.

lol, good luck with that.

Oh, don't worry. Luck doesn't have much to do with it.

So a person can reevaluate their entire method of knowledge acquisition without adopting another worldview?

Sure. You could and should. Some aspects of this we call "secular education." Surely, you're not against secular education, right?

Seems to me that even if we aren't talking about switching to a different faith, we are still faced with a person who changes the way they get knowledge, and if that's the case, they will have to consider everything they have learnt with their old method to be suspect.

Could be, but it won't necessarily be the case. It could be that one keeps their worldview but updates how they think it works. And then, as you were saying, too, there's always the chance things could go another way.

After all, as far as they know, the knowledge they got the old way is flawed. How can that not be accompanied by a change in their worldview?

Well, let's see. I recently corrected my wife [without her consent] by telling her that the moon doesn't glow but rather it has sunlight reflected off of its surface, and I explained logically how we know this. Apparently, she'd never heard this fact before and was greatly surprised (and I was surprised that she was surprised since she had taken a Physics class at college a few decades ago and got an 'A' in it-----and I'm think'n, "What???? How did she not already know what I'm now telling her"?)

Anyway, she was surprised, but not so much so that she dropped her Christian beliefs or adopted some other larger way of seeing the world around her. No, just one little bite of her world as she thinks she knows it has been modified.

 

[Kylie]

Well.................if they're doing so, I'd say they need to stop.

Agreed.

Ok. That's fine. For my part, I wouldn't ask you to believe without evidence. But I would ask you to re-evaluate your epistemological framework and it's collected assumptions and points of praxis.

You know, this could be phrased so much more clearly. What in the world are the points of praxis? I do a Google search and I get a whole bunch of stuff about how it's a registered trademark for a series of tests about seeing what you know. Are you their salesman? Can you repeat this statement in clear English?

Sure. You could and should. Some aspects of this we call "secular education." Surely, you're not against secular education, right?

I've never had anything but a secular education. So in what way have I re-evaluated my entire worldview and knowledge gathering mechanism?

Could be, but it won't necessarily be the case. It could be that one keeps their worldview but updates how they think it works. And then, as you were saying, too, there's always the chance things could go another way.

To be fair, you were the one who was talking about "re-evaluating epistemological frameworks" which I took to mean looking at the method by which you gain information and deciding if it is an accurate method or not. If one decides that their method is inaccurate, then surely that will force them to conclude that every piece of knowledge they have gained from this method is potentially flawed, yes? How does one keep a worldview while at the same time deciding that it works differently?

Well, let's see. I recently corrected my wife [without her consent] by telling her that the moon doesn't glow but rather it has sunlight reflected off of its surface, and I explained logically how we know this. Apparently, she'd never heard this fact before and was greatly surprised (and I was surprised that she was surprised since she had taken a Physics class at college a few decades ago and got an 'A' in it-----and I'm think'n, "What???? How did she not already know what I'm now telling her"?)

Anyway, she was surprised, but not so much so that she dropped her Christian beliefs or adopted some other larger way of seeing the world around her. No, just one little bite of her world as she thinks she knows it has been modified.

True, but if she does as you suggested and re-evaluates her epistemological framework, couldn't she (correctly) conclude that the Bible's claim that the moon is a source of light rather than just a reflector of light is flawed and thus the Bible doesn't always provide accurate information about the nature of reality? Wouldn't she then be justified in suspecting that (since if the Bible is mistaken about one thing it can be mistaken about other things) the worldview she's taken from the Bible is potentially flawed and thus must be checked against some extra-Biblical standard such as the real world? I've heard plenty of stories about people becoming atheists that way...

 

[Ken-1122]

I think there's a difference between an objective reality and objective evidence for that reality.
for example, I believe we both agree that humans have the ability to choose.
that is an objective reality, a fact.
but evidence for our ability to choose is interior sensations, something subjective.

Good point!

true!
it seems to me, then, that if we allow interior sensations as evidence of our ability to choose, we would also allow it as evidence for the existence of God.

Not quite. Interior sensations as evidence of our ability to choose is only personal evidence; not sufficient evidence to convince anyone else. Interior sensations as evidence for God is personal evidence, not sufficient to convince anyone else.

morality based on people's values, then, would be highly variable, imo.
it would vary from one person to the next, and from one culture to the next.

many atheists are in favor of this approach to morality, I think.

That’s just the way things work in the real world. And I think more theists are in favor of this approach than atheists.(only because there are so much of them)

as a society moves to greater freedom and openness, which many atheists encourage, the moral thinking moves ever closer to moral nihilism (everyone just do what seems right in the moment), imo.

It appears you are confusing the evolution of laws with the rejection of laws.

I believe you had said earlier words to the effect that meaning and purpose for life was subjective for you, not objective.

my sense was that we were using those words the same way,
a subjective meaning and purpose would be something originating inside of you,
an objective meaning and purpose would be something from outside of yourself, either a person or an intelligence of some sort.

Like a slave?

are we on the same page there?

so, subjective meaning and purpose to life is often called existential nihilism, I believe.

And objective meaning and purpose to life is often called slavery; I believe.

sure, it's in the second paragraph

"Most commonly, nihilism refers to existential nihilism, according to which life is believed to be without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.[4] Moral nihilism asserts that nothing is morally right or wrong. "

Nihilism - Wikipedia

And this is one of the problems I have with Wikipedia; anybody can post there. I went to the second paragraph, where they mention existential nihilism, and the word is underlined, and when you click on the underlined word it gives the accurate definition of the word and this definition does not mention objective meaning, it mentions intrinsic meaning. It’s like the person who wrote this got it wrong.

while it's true that anyone can edit Wikipedia, it's also true that there are many people who monitor the subjects they are interested in and keep them on track.
at least that's been my experience with Wikipedia.
it's also more accessible than many other websites.

I mean this as politely as possible, but if you object to the Wikipedia definition, why are you waiting until now to voice your objection?

I’ve voiced my objection before; perhaps just not with you. But to answer your question, because now is when they put something down I disagree with. (In my previous reply I mention how it seems they got it wrong)

did you want to answer this question?
"what positive term shall we use to refer to someone who says that life has no objective meaning or purpose?"

A person who understands the difference between subjective meaning and purpose and objective meaning and purpose. To understand the difference is a good thing.

 

[Ken-1122]

(I forgot to say earlier that I'm back and thank you for waiting.
we got my mom settled into a nice memory Care facility.
she doesn't know where she is or why she's there, but that's pretty standard for someone with memory issues!)

Welcome back, and I hope things work out best for your mom

I agree that it is objective evidence, but is it clearly evidence of consciousness?

I assume we agree that computers are not conscious.

I don't think you have any way of knowing whether I am a conscious being like yourself or a computer imitating a conscious being.

I think in philosophy this is called the problem of other minds.

True I have no way of knowing if you are who you claim to be; you could be a 100 year old woman, a 12 year old boy, or a computer programmed to communicate with me in a way that sounds like an actual person. Because I have nothing invested in you being a middle aged male, (assuming that is who you are) I couldn’t really care less if you were anything else.

I believe the question was whether you had objective evidence that I am a conscious being.

I agree you have objective evidence, I disagree that it is necessarily evidence of consciousness.

I agree!

I think those are really important questions, you may wish to ponder them a bit.

and of course, I think a person is welcome to assume whatever they wish.

There are people who study those things and they are better equipped, and capable of getting better answers than I am. When they come up with answers I will likely take their word for it.

if you are like most atheists that I have interacted with, you would want to do experiments because experimentation is one of the main features of science, and most atheists are into science.

As an atheist, I like science, but I am not a scientist. I would rather let the scientists do their jobs, and give me the best information they have when they get it.

 

[SelfSim]

did you want to answer this question?
"what positive term shall we use to refer to someone who says that life has no objective meaning or purpose?"

Please pardon my interjection here, but I feel I may have something useful/interesting to contribute to this fascinating conversation .. as follows:

I would say, firstly, 'life' has whatever meaning we choose to assign it .. after all its our human English language word, and we clearly have the ability to make such meaning assignments.

Secondly positive terms to use for a person who recognises our ability to assign such meanings, is either 'A scientific thinker', or (further), 'A Humanist'.

A person who understands the difference between subjective meaning and purpose and objective meaning and purpose. To understand the difference is a good thing.

I'd agree that would be a good thing.

However, to me, any meanings we come up with, requires our own active minds .. even say, where you envisage an (implied) meaning of slavery (in your queried answer of: 'Like a slave?'), I cannot simply ignore that I just saw it was you who gave the phrase 'objective purpose' that particular meaning. That observation constitutes yet another test datapoint in verification of the hypothesis that human minds, (yours in this case), assign meaning to our words/phrases.

There is no known way, yet, to objectively demonstrate that objective=external from our minds, whereby what I mean by 'external' there, is: exists entirely independent from any human mind, whatsoever. Having made that demonstrable claim, one can still nonetheless believe that notion .. but its still a notion, which requires a human mind to conceive it.
IOW, the difference between subjective (being interior) and objective (being exterior) is at best, still demonstrably subject to a human mind.
The difference between subjective and objective is in fact, quite arbitrary. I would say a scientific thinker however strives, (as best they can), to maintain a distinction between the two by referencing test data and independent verification of that data .. which then represents a scientific thinker's understanding.
The 'interior evidence' for God, then represents a religious thinker's understanding which references beliefs (and not test data).
The difference between science and belief (faith) arises from the dissimilar methods (or processes) used by scientific and religious thinkers respectively.

Hope that all makes some sense(?)
Cheers

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Agreed.



You know, this could be phrased so much more clearly. What in the world are the points of praxis? I do a Google search and I get a whole bunch of stuff about how it's a registered trademark for a series of tests about seeing what you know. Are you their salesman? Can you repeat this statement in clear English?

That's not funny, Kylie. You mean to tell me that you have the Google search engine up, and you can type in the work PRAXIS into the search box, press enter and absolutely nothing comes up for you on the first page. That's strange...............................because it does for me. I can imagine Google would pull something up for about 2 billion other people as well.

Are you really interested in knowing, or is this just a rhetorical ploy to apply to me so onlookers who aren't in the know might think I've just 'made it all up'?

I've never had anything but a secular education. So in what way have I re-evaluated my entire worldview and knowledge gathering mechanism?

That's the question: Have you ever? Have you ever had a class on epistemology or on the Philosophy of Science, or Historiography, or the Philosophy of History, or a solid Ethics class? If not, maybe it's time.

To be fair, you were the one who was talking about "re-evaluating epistemological frameworks" which I took to mean looking at the method by which you gain information and deciding if it is an accurate method or not.

Kind of. But not exactly.

If one decides that their method is inaccurate, then surely that will force them to conclude that every piece of knowledge they have gained from this method is potentially flawed, yes? How does one keep a worldview while at the same time deciding that it works differently?

Well, that's not the point. The point is for you to be able to tell others how it is that you KNOW you're 'method' and the theory you have driving it (which together form your PRAXIS) .................... work best and are accurate and adequate.

True, but if she does as you suggested and re-evaluates her epistemological framework, couldn't she (correctly) conclude that the Bible's claim that the moon is a source of light rather than just a reflector of light is flawed and thus the Bible doesn't always provide accurate information about the nature of reality?

Who said anything about my wife getting her previous view of moonlight by having read the Bible? I never said she did.

Wouldn't she then be justified in suspecting that (since if the Bible is mistaken about one thing it can be mistaken about other things) the worldview she's taken from the Bible is potentially flawed and thus must be checked against some extra-Biblical standard such as the real world? I've heard plenty of stories about people becoming atheists that way...

Uh. No?

 

[SelfSim]

Well, let's see. I recently corrected my wife [without her consent] by telling her that the moon doesn't glow but rather it has sunlight reflected off of its surface, and I explained logically how we know this. Apparently, she'd never heard this fact before and was greatly surprised (and I was surprised that she was surprised since she had taken a Physics class at college a few decades ago and got an 'A' in it-----and I'm think'n, "What???? How did she not already know what I'm now telling her"?)

Anyway, she was surprised, but not so much so that she dropped her Christian beliefs or adopted some other larger way of seeing the world around her. No, just one little bite of her world as she thinks she knows it has been modified.

What I see happening there is that her mind updated her knowledge of the term, 'moonshine', with a different meaning. And that meaning came from your mind by way of language which conveyed that different meaning.
If she was thinking scientifically, then she would cross-check the meaning you conveyed by referencing how surface reflection works and draw an inference based conclusion from that, on her own.
Alternatively, she may just simply believe the meaning you give to 'moonshine' and go with that, perhaps because she trusts you in such matters(?)
Two different methods .. two different 'worldviews' there, I think(?) And she has the choice over which method to use.

 

[Ken-1122]

To a limited degree it does. But are you able to place a label then on your own epistemological position?

No I am not.

It almost sounds like you go in for Coherency Theory rather than what a large number of atheists here go in for, which is Moderate to Strong Foundationalism.

I am not familiar with either of those positions.

 

[Kylie]

That's not funny, Kylie. You mean to tell me that you have the Google search engine up, and you can type in the work PRAXIS into the search box, press enter and absolutely nothing comes up for you on the first page. That's strange...............................because it does for me. I can imagine Google would pull something up for about 2 billion other people as well.

Are you really interested in knowing, or is this just a rhetorical ploy to apply to me so onlookers who aren't in the know might think I've just 'made it all up'?

I'm a Star Trek fan, so to me Praxis is a Klingon moon that exploded in Star Trek 6.

The point is, Praxis could mean lots of things. I did a search for Points of Praxis and got this: points of praxis - Google Search

That's the question: Have you ever? Have you ever had a class on epistemology or on the Philosophy of Science, or Historiography, or the Philosophy of History, or a solid Ethics class? If not, maybe it's time.

I've never had a religious education. And secular means" not religious" right?

Kind of. But not exactly.

It seems that apparently you need to work on the clarity of your language.

Well, that's not the point. The point is for you to be able to tell others how it is that you KNOW you're 'method' and the theory you have driving it (which together form your PRAXIS) .................... work best and are accurate and adequate.

My method of getting information is good because I can use it to make testable predictions about the future which, when tested, actually work. If my method was wrong, such predictions would not match what actually happens.

Who said anything about my wife getting her previous view of moonlight by having read the Bible? I never said she did.

You implied it by using the phrase "her Christian beliefs," as the moon being a source of light is something mentioned right at the start of the Bible.

Uh. No?

Even leaving aside the fact that the Bible is not apparently where she got the iodea that the moon is a source of light, if you find that a source is mistaken about one claim, it logically follows that since you know it is now fallible, you must consider that any claim it makes is fallible. Thus, you should not accept any claim it makes based solely on that source's claim. You should seek out other sources apart from that first source, because if you have many sources that all make the same claim, that claim is less likely to be wrong.

So, uh, yes.

 

[Ken-1122]

I'd agree that would be a good thing.

However, to me, any meanings we come up with, requires our own active minds .. even say, where you envisage an (implied) meaning of slavery (in your queried answer of: 'Like a slave?'), I cannot simply ignore that I just saw it was you who gave the phrase 'objective purpose' that particular meaning.

Yes! A machine’s purpose is to fulfill the task it’s owner purchased it to do, a pet’s purpose in life is to please it’s owner, and a slave’s purpose in life is to fulfill his master’s needs, but a free man is allowed to serve his own needs thus he assigns purpose in his life according to his wishes and needs; not somebody else's.

There is no known way, yet, to objectively demonstrate that objective=external from our minds, whereby what I mean by 'external' there, is: exists entirely independent from any human mind, whatsoever.

I disagree! The tree in my front yard exists independent of any human mind; even my own. If my mind says that tree is not there, my mind can be empirically proven wrong.

Having made that demonstrable claim, one can still nonetheless believe that notion .. but its still a notion, which requires a human mind to conceive it.
IOW, the difference between subjective (being interior) and objective (being exterior) is at best, still demonstrably subject to a human mind.

I disagree! The fact that the there is a tree in my front lawn is an objective reality. The idea that it is a beautiful tree in my front lawn is my subjective reality; both realities require the human mind to conceive it, the difference is; the objective reality of the tree’s existence is an objective fact, the idea that it is beautiful is an opinion.

The difference between subjective and objective is in fact, quite arbitrary. I would say a scientific thinker however strives, (as best they can), to maintain a distinction between the two by referencing test data and independent verification of that data .. which then represents a scientific thinker's understanding.

The fact that objective is based on test data and independent verification of that data, and subjective does not; this is all the difference in the world. The difference between objective and subjective is far from arbitrary

 

[SelfSim]

I disagree! The tree in my front yard exists independent of any human mind; even my own. If my mind says that tree is not there, my mind can be empirically proven wrong.
...
I disagree! The fact that the there is a tree in my front lawn is an objective reality. The idea that it is a beautiful tree in my front lawn is my subjective reality; both realities require the human mind to conceive it, the difference is; the objective reality of the tree’s existence is an objective fact, the idea that it is beautiful is an opinion.

Ok .. let me illustrate:

Me: so the tree in your front yard is something you are sure exists independently of you?
Ken1122: yes.
Me: and why are you sure it exists?
Ken1122: for reasons X, Y, and Z.
Me: So those reasons convince you that you are sure?
Ken1122: yes.
Me: That's the part that isn't independent of you.

The fact that objective is based on test data and independent verification of that data, and subjective does not; this is all the difference in the world. The difference between objective and subjective is far from arbitrary

Firstly, the term 'objective' implies a focus on the 'object', rather than the 'subject', but this doesn't come anywhere close to doing justice to the concept of objectivity. A religious person who says 'god did it' as the explanation to everything, is certainly focusing on the 'object' .. they simply see the 'objects' of their experiences as manifestations of things god did, not things they themselves (the 'subject' of their experience) had anything to do with. So why is that not 'objective' too?

Secondly, how can we tell what is say, a mirage, for example? That has to do with consistencies between the senses. So I think the underpinning of objectivity has much to do with the concept of consistency, but it is far from a simple concept.
One of the main reasons people don't agree on evolution versus creationism, for example, is that they don't think in the same way about the concept of consistency. The creationist thinks the evolutionist is being inconsistent, cherry-picking the data they like and ignoring the extreme unlikelihoods they have to brush aside. The evolutionist thinks the creationist is being inconsistent, starting from a point of knowing the required answer and forcing themselves to interpret all information in such a skewed way as to seem consistent with that initial belief. When we cannot agree on who is being consistent, how can we agree on objectivity?

Another example; look at the consistency between minds that is so central to the idea of objectivity, and the whole basis of objective science. Surely we can all agree if someone was either cured of a disease, or died from it? Well, not necessarily .. what if a movement gained popularity that held that modern medicine is all a conspiracy by the medical industry to hoodwink us into giving them tons of money, that actually diseases like cancer and hypertension can sometimes get better or worse and they are just making up all their data that claims their medicines help. If the vast majority of people believed that, but a small group of medical scientists continued their efforts to advance cures, then 'objectivity' would no longer mean anything like 'thinking like a normal person', because the normal people aren't thinking objectively in that scenario, but the scientists would still think like scientists. What this means is, objectivity and scientific thinking are ways of operation of a mind, that we can usually get away with associating with 'normal' thought processes, but that cannot be its defining characteristic.
See the problem? In that scenario, the majority would think they are being objective, and the scientists are deluded, while the scientists would think just the opposite. Of course the scientists could point to outcomes of double-blind trials and so on, while the general public would dismiss the trials as more brainwashing.

I think the bottom line is, science will always be done by like-minded people, and the consistency they seek will be of a particular kind, but it will never be able to be proven to be a universal or absolute form of consistency. If you understand what scientific consistency is, you will be able to be a scientist, and if you do not, you won't, but there's not a whole lot more that can be said without some basic common ground.

So scientific objectivity is not a simple concept ... it is a way of thinking, and as such, is mind dependent.

 

[Ken-1122]

Ok .. let me illustrate:

Me: so the tree in your front yard is something you are sure exists independently of you?
Ken1122: yes.
Me: and why are you sure it exists?
Ken1122: for reasons X, Y, and Z.
Me: So those reasons convince you that you are sure?
Ken1122: yes.
Me: That's the part that isn't independent of you.

If reasons X,Y, and Z are “because not only do I experience it’s existence, but everybody else (independent of me) have the exact same experience that I have concerning that tree” that reason would be independent of me.

Firstly, the term 'objective' implies a focus on the 'object', rather than the 'subject', but this doesn't come anywhere close to doing justice to the concept of objectivity.

Objective means a lot more than “focus on the object” It also means based on unbiased fact, something that can be demonstrated as true.

A religious person who says 'god did it' as the explanation to everything, is certainly focusing on the 'object' .. they simply see the 'objects' of their experiences as manifestations of things god did, not things they themselves (the 'subject' of their experience) had anything to do with. So why is that not 'objective' too?

Because “God did it” cannot be demonstrated as true.

Secondly, how can we tell what is say, a mirage, for example? That has to do with consistencies between the senses.

A mirage only affect your vision; it does not affect your other 4 senses

So I think the underpinning of objectivity has much to do with the concept of consistency, but it is far from a simple concept.
One of the main reasons people don't agree on evolution versus creationism, for example, is that they don't think in the same way about the concept of consistency. The creationist thinks the evolutionist is being inconsistent, cherry-picking the data they like and ignoring the extreme unlikelihoods they have to brush aside. The evolutionist thinks the creationist is being inconsistent, starting from a point of knowing the required answer and forcing themselves to interpret all information in such a skewed way as to seem consistent with that initial belief. When we cannot agree on who is being consistent, how can we agree on objectivity?

From my experience, most evolution vs creation debates is based on ignorance. Creation is about how life began, evolution is about how an already existing life evolves from one state to another. Evolution does not address the beginning of life but creationist (at least the ones I’ve seen debate) believe it does.

Another example; look at the consistency between minds that is so central to the idea of objectivity, and the whole basis of objective science. Surely we can all agree if someone was either cured of a disease, or died from it? Well, not necessarily .. what if a movement gained popularity that held that modern medicine is all a conspiracy by the medical industry to hoodwink us into giving them tons of money, that actually diseases like cancer and hypertension can sometimes get better or worse and they are just making up all their data that claims their medicines help. If the vast majority of people believed that, but a small group of medical scientists continued their efforts to advance cures, then 'objectivity' would no longer mean anything like 'thinking like a normal person', because the normal people aren't thinking objectively in that scenario, but the scientists would still think like scientists.

Again; objective means based on something that can be demonstrated as true; IOW fact. The small group of scientists in your scenario are basing their findings on fact, the vast majority of people tricked into believing are not basing their views on fact but subjective opinions. The only difference between your scenario and todays reality is the percentage of people who believe the scientists, and the percentage who believe the conspiracy theorists.

What this means is, objectivity and scientific thinking are ways of operation of a mind, that we can usually get away with associating with 'normal' thought processes, but that cannot be its defining characteristic.
See the problem? In that scenario, the majority would think they are being objective, and the scientists are deluded, while the scientists would think just the opposite.

No, in your scenario the majority have no clue about diseases, they know they have no objective proof to back up their beliefs so they know they are not being objective. Only the scientists claim to have proof, only the scientists can claim to be objective.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm a Star Trek fan, so to me Praxis is a Klingon moon that exploded in Star Trek 6.

I'm a Star Trek fan as well, and I was going to bring this to your attention. In fact, it provides a good metaphor for its meaning....................which is what I'm sure folks like Gene Rodenberry chose to call it, and not by some mere accident, Kylie. The Klingon moon, and its explosion in the movie screenplay, makes the perfect point.

The point is, Praxis could mean lots of things. I did a search for Points of Praxis and got this: points of praxis - Google Search

No, try again. You're a smart girl, and I'm confident that if Gene Rodenberry knew what 'praxis' means, then you can too. And if I can put in the word 'praxis' into the Google search engine and find something substantive with the first search, then again, you can too.

I've never had a religious education. And secular means" not religious" right?

Yes, and I'm glad you're educated. I've had both, however: a secular education, and also a religious one.

Moreover, what I'm asking you to do really has nothing to do with religion. It's all secular: epistemology is secular. Hermeneutics is also secular.

It seems that apparently you need to work on the clarity of your language.

Oh, I'm sure I do. I've been recused of verbosity before. But then again, I'd like to suggest to other people that maybe they need to work on their listening and learning skills. On this note, I'm sure an intelligent person like yourself could do so without too much difficulty.

My method of getting information is good because I can use it to make testable predictions about the future which, when tested, actually work. If my method was wrong, such predictions would not match what actually happens.

Which methods of science do you like to use? How does your own understanding about the Nature of Science (N.O.S.) play into your scientific and/or epistemological praxis, Kylie?

You implied it by using the phrase "her Christian beliefs," as the moon being a source of light is something mentioned right at the start of the Bible.

No, actually I did not 'imply' it. This is just how you're interpreting what you think I've said. You're making conceptual connections about what you think I mean that I never hooked up together. The truth of the matter is that she got her previous, more superstitious, 2-dimensional understanding about moonlight...............because she grew up in a former Soviet block country which didn't do much for her scientific understanding of the world around her. In fact, it's 'worldview' was such that it was stunted her overall praxis, kind of like those of the Klingons in Star Trek 6 (which in a direct way in that very movie, the Klingons represented the Soviets.....)

Even leaving aside the fact that the Bible is not apparently where she got the iodea that the moon is a source of light, if you find that a source is mistaken about one claim, it logically follows that since you know it is now fallible, you must consider that any claim it makes is fallible. Thus, you should not accept any claim it makes based solely on that source's claim. You should seek out other sources apart from that first source, because if you have many sources that all make the same claim, that claim is less likely to be wrong.

No, that's not exactly correct. Simply because some source gets something wrong on one account doesn't mean it'll necessarily be wrong on all accounts with everything else in life. We don't assume that just because one apple on top of the barrel is tainted with a worm doesn't automatically mean every other apple in the barrel is likewise tainted.

So, uh, yes.

The actual answer is both 'Maybe/Maybe Not--it depends!!'

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No I am not.

I am not familiar with either of those positions.

Yeah. You might want to check it out since it'll help you better understand just how well you (and others) may or may not be justifying your own understanding and beliefs about the world around you.