What does 'objective' actually mean?

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ) · Jun 23, 2016

In regards to philosophy:

Objectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met without biases caused by feelings, ideas, opinions, etc., of a sentient subject. A second, broader meaning of the term refers to the ability in any context to judge fairly, without partiality or external influence. This second meaning of objectivity is sometimes used synonymously with neutrality.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

Chriliman · Jun 23, 2016

HitchSlap said:
How would you know if you were wrong?

There would have to be an objective source that informs you that you're wrong. Even still, you'd have to subjective accept that you're wrong and believe the objective source.

HitchSlap · Jun 23, 2016

Chriliman said:
There would have to be an objective source that informs you that you're wrong. Even still, you'd have to subjective accept that you're wrong and believe the objective source.

By Jove, I think you're starting to get it.
Good show!

Chriliman · Jun 23, 2016

HitchSlap said:
By Jove, I think you're starting to get it.
Good show!

I've known this for a long time, however, when certain people make statements like Ana the Ist did, it can cause confusion.

HitchSlap · Jun 23, 2016

Chriliman said:
I've known this for a long time, however, when certain people make statements like Ana the Ist did, it can cause confusion.

I understood his statement perfectly well. On the contrary, it's you who seem to be colossally confused. It's ok though, as I have noticed that you're seriously wrestling with the conflict between your preconceived notions of religious knowledge and how logical syllogisms really work. And that's good!

Chriliman · Jun 23, 2016

HitchSlap said:
I understood his statement perfectly well. On the contrary, it's you who seem to be colossally confused. It's ok though, as I have noticed that you're seriously wrestling with the conflict between your preconceived notions of religious knowledge and how logical syllogisms really work. And that's good!

The "religious knowledge" that you're referring to simply states that God is the objective source of all truth.

For an atheist, anything can be considered an objective source of truth, except God.

HitchSlap · Jun 23, 2016

Yes, everything is objective evidence for something. The trick is remaining objective as humanly possible so the explanation comports with reality.

Chriliman · Jun 23, 2016

HitchSlap said:
Yes, everything is objective evidence for something. The trick is remaining objective as humanly possible so the explanation comports with reality.

Agreed. Which is one reason I've always said truth claims are objective evidence. The reason this is true is because when a truth claim is made, it exists in objective reality just like everything else in objective reality.

There are still many people, both theist and atheist who do not agree with that.

HitchSlap · Jun 23, 2016

Chriliman said:
Agreed. Which is one reason I've always said truth claims are objective evidence.

Let's not go backwards here, you were doing so well.
We've already established that a claim is not truth for itself... that's not a logical assertion. Remember the, 'I have $20 in my pocket scenario?'

Chriliman said:
The reason this is true

Remember, claims are not necessarily true, they might be false, therefore it's illogical to assume they're true. It's why they must be investigated, and the best way is to use independently objective methods, that way, you'll know if you're wrong.

Chriliman said:
is because when a truth claim is made,

It must be investigated, using independently, objective methods, so as to avoid gullibility.

Chriliman said:
it exists in objective reality just like everything else in objective reality.

Yes, claims exist. And they must be investigated using independently objective evidence. Otherwise, you have no way to know if a claim is false or true. Remember, to accept a claim at face value is the epitome of gullibility.
How does the famous quote go... "there's a sucker born every minute."

Chriliman said:
There are still many people, both theist and atheist who do not agree with that.

Which is why I think it's important to explain these things to those who are interested. I prefer to live in a world where logic and reason is the norm, and not the exception!

Chriliman · Jun 23, 2016

HitchSlap said:
Let's not go backwards here, you were doing so well.
We've already established that a claim is not truth for itself... that's not a logical assertion. Remember the, 'I have $20 in my pocket scenario?'

Remember, claims are not necessarily true, they might be false, therefore it's illogical to assume they're true. It's why they must be investigated, and the best way is to use independently objective methods, that way, you'll know if you're wrong.

It must be investigated, using independently, objective methods, so as to avoid gullibility.

Yes, claims exist. And they must be investigated using independently objective evidence. Otherwise, you have no way to know if a claim is false or true. Remember, to accept a claim at face value is the epitome of gullibility.
How does the famous quote go... "there's a sucker born every minute."

Which is why I think it's important to explain these things to those who are interested. I prefer to live in a world where logic and reason is the norm, and not the exception!

Are you disagreeing that claims are objective evidence? Even though they clearly exist in objective reality and can be analyzed just like all other evidence?

I'm not saying we shouldn't expect supporting evidence to verify a claim, but this does not mean a claim should not be considered as objective evidence.

HitchSlap · Jun 23, 2016

Chriliman said:
Are you disagreeing that claims are objective evidence? Even though they clearly exist in objective reality and can be analyzed just like all other evidence?

I'm not saying we shouldn't expect supporting evidence to verify a claim, but this does not mean a claim should not be considered as objective evidence.

I'm not sure why you're so stuck on the "claim is evidence" idea?
No one is denying that once a claim is made, that it doesn't exist.

Let's take a run at it this way. Can I ask you a series of questions?

Chriliman · Jun 23, 2016

HitchSlap said:
I'm not sure why you're so stuck on the "claim is evidence" idea?
No one is denying that once a claim is made, that it doesn't exist.

Let's take a run at it this way. Can I ask you a series of questions?

I'm stuck on it because it's actually true, yet people won't accept that it's true.

Anyways, we're already off topic and this thread has served its purpose.

Thanks

HitchSlap · Jun 23, 2016

Chriliman said:
I'm stuck on it because it's actually true, yet people won't accept that it's true.

Is the statement, "I have $20 in my left front pocket," true or false?

expos4ever · Jun 23, 2016

Chriliman said:
Are you disagreeing that claims are objective evidence?

Well, one needs to nuance this a bit. If I make the following claim:

"X is the case"

....it is objectively true that I have made a claim about X.

But it is certainly not the case that my claim is objective evidence supporting the assertion "X is the case".

HitchSlap · Jun 23, 2016

expos4ever said:
Well, one needs to nuance this a bit. If I make the following claim:

"X is the case"

....it is objectively true that I have made a claim about X.

But it is certainly not the case that my claim is objective evidence supporting the assertion "X is the case".

He refuses to acknowledge this fact.

ToddNotTodd · Jun 23, 2016

HitchSlap said:
He refuses to acknowledge this fact.

Along with many others.

I keep asking the question "What do you think you're accomplishing here using fallacious arguments that won't convince any atheist?".

Chriliman · Jun 23, 2016

HitchSlap said:
Is the statement, "I have $20 in my left front pocket," true or false?

The point is that, that statement is evidence of a truth value and this point is axiomatic, meaning if you deny this point then you're being illogical.

HitchSlap · Jun 23, 2016

Chriliman said:
The point is that, that statement is evidence of a truth value and this point is axiomatic, meaning if you deny this point then you're being illogical.

I'm not sure why this is so hard for you? I'm really trying to understand what you're trying to convey here. Are you merely stating that once a statement exists, it exists? This seems a bit redundant to me, and I'm not sure what your point actually is.

expos4ever · Jun 23, 2016

Chriliman said:
The point is that, that statement is evidence of a truth value and this point is axiomatic, meaning if you deny this point then you're being illogical.

Not sure what you mean. Obviously, to the extent that Hitch is otherwise known to be believable and not inclined to lie, yes, the mere claim of having $ 20 in his (her?) pocket justifies you having reasonable confidence that Hitch, indeed, has $ 20 in the pocket. But it would not properly be called objective evidence because it is not subject to the kind of "public, third-party demonstrability" criterion we normally attach to the concept of objective evidence.

But if you are simply saying that the claim of a reliable source is evidence (notice I do not say "objective evidence") in favour of the claim, I would agree with you. However, I hesitate to even use the word "evidence" since that term in its naked, unqualified use has implications of objectivity.

But his/her claim to have $ 20 in the pocket is certainly not - simply by the meaning of the concept of "objective" - objective evidence to support the hypothesis that there is $ 20 in his/her pocket.

StanJ · Jun 23, 2016

Chriliman said:
The word 'objective' can either mean:

1. The state of reality as it actually exists apart from all minds

or

2. (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

When one word has two meanings it can cause confusion. I've come accross the confusion in many different threads here.

I think we can drop the first meaning because it's impossible for any being to know the state of reality as it actually exists apart from it's ability to perceive/know reality.

So that first meaning is based on an unknowable reality and therefore irrelevant to all knowable things in the knowable reality.

I believe that God is the only being in existence who perfectly knows reality and this is how he can make/create all things possible.

Thoughts?

This does not mean that the word has two meanings, it means that the word has at least two different connotations depending on its use. An objective can be considered a goal or being objective can mean being impartial... again it depends how it's being used.

What does 'objective' actually mean?

Well-Known Member

Everything I need to be joyful is right here

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Everything I need to be joyful is right here

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Everything I need to be joyful is right here

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Everything I need to be joyful is right here

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Everything I need to be joyful is right here

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Everything I need to be joyful is right here

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Well-Known Member

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Iconoclast

Everything I need to be joyful is right here

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Well-Known Member

Student & Correct Handler of God's Word.

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency