What does 'objective' actually mean?

[expos4ever]

You cannot make any positive statement regarding the truth of a claim only based on the claim.

I think you can for such self-referential claims as "I claim the words I am writing now comprise a sentence".

 

[Freodin]

I think you can for such self-referential claims as "I claim the words I am writing now comprise a sentence".

I would agree partially. Self-referential stuff can lead to some very weird results in logic. For some statements it works the way it does. For some it doesn't.

Take "this sentence is a lie", for example. Self referential, but impossible to attribute any truthvalue to it.

 

[Abraxos]

If I threw an atheist off a cliff, it doesn't matter what he thinks he believes or disbelieves, he's still going to fall. So there certainly is an objective reality.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

If I threw an atheist off a cliff, it doesn't matter what he thinks he believes or disbelieves, he's still going to fall. So there certainly is an objective reality.

Yay for Internet tough guys!

 

[Abraxos]

I prefer funny at your expense.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It's statements like the above that cause confusion. How else do human's gain knowledge about what objectively exists other than by viewing it and thinking about what objectively exists from their individual subjective perspective?

Did you read the rest of my post? If you did you already know the answer...science.

Your statement implies that I should be able to gain knowledge without using my subjective abilities to understand the world, but how would this be possible?

Science!

If it's not possible then what you've said above is actually wrong and we actually do gain knowledge subjectively because it's the only way to gain knowledge.

It's possible! It's called science! Ever heard of it? It's an amazing thing....look into it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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.

Actually, those claims would be subjective....unless they are self referencing.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I think you can for such self-referential claims as "I claim the words I am writing now comprise a sentence".

Or...

I speak English.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I prefer funny at your expense.

Hmmm, I think there's a word for people who think throwing atheists off cliffs is funny...

 

[Chriliman]

Did you read the rest of my post? If you did you already know the answer...science.



Science!



It's possible! It's called science! Ever heard of it? It's an amazing thing....look into it.

When you say this, you're implying that science allows us to be perfectly objective, but this is not true because there's always a degree of subjectivity in scientific knowledge because human's cannot be perfectly objective in of themselves.

 

[HitchSlap]

When you say this, you're implying that science allows us to be perfectly objective, but this is not true because there's always a degree of subjectivity in scientific knowledge because human's cannot be perfectly objective in of themselves.

Which is where the "independently verifiable" part, comes in. Have you not listened to a thing I've said??

 

[bhsmte]

Which is where the "independently verifiable" part, comes in. Have you not listened to a thing I've said??

And i declare, your statement is evidence of it's truth.

 

[Chriliman]

Which is where the "independently verifiable" part, comes in. Have you not listened to a thing I've said??

So science does allow us to be perfectly objective about specific scientific tests? Assuming there was no fault in the equipment or contamination?

I would think perfect objectivity would already know faults in equipment or contamination and would be able to prevent these things from affecting the test results. Then again, perfect objectivity would not even need to run tests because it would already know what's true.

 

[HitchSlap]

So science does allow us to be perfectly objective about specific scientific tests? Assuming there was no fault in the equipment or contamination?

I would think perfect objectivity would already know faults in equipment or contamination and would be able to prevent these things from affecting the test results. Then again, perfect objectivity would not even need to run tests because it would already know what's true.

It's hard for me to believe you're not deliberately being obtuse. So I'll just say "good one!"

 

[Tinker Grey]

Hmmm, I think there's a word for people who think throwing atheists off cliffs is funny...

Religious?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

So science does allow us to be perfectly objective about specific scientific tests? Assuming there was no fault in the equipment or contamination?

I would think perfect objectivity would already know faults in equipment or contamination and would be able to prevent these things from affecting the test results. Then again, perfect objectivity would not even need to run tests because it would already know what's true.

I've asked this question several times to you and I think you've ignored it every time:

What do you hope to gain if no atheist is ever going to listen to your fallacious arguments?

 

[expos4ever]

Which is where the "independently verifiable" part, comes in. Have you not listened to a thing I've said??

I agree but would perhaps express it differently. Clearly, scientists are subject to bias. But the attractive feature of science is that the "rules" that govern corporate scientific activity - science as conducted by the community of scientists - act as a powerful control mechanism that significantly attenuates the effects of personal bias.

In other words, it would be a gross misrepresentation to think that the "objectivity" of the whole scientific enterprise depends only on a kind of "personal commitment" on the part of individual scientists to be objective. The reality is that the larger "system" is designed to promote objectivity.

 

[bhsmte]

I've asked this question several times to you and I think you've ignored it every time:

What do you hope to gain if no atheist is ever going to listen to your fallacious arguments?

Likely, he is talking more to himself and trying desperately to keep his personal faith beliefs safe.

 

[expos4ever]

Then again, perfect objectivity would not even need to run tests because it would already know what's true.

This statement appears to imply that we do not need to conduct empirical investigations to discover truths about the world. Almost no one believes this, I suggest.

 

[Ana the Ist]

When you say this, you're implying that science allows us to be perfectly objective, but this is not true because there's always a degree of subjectivity in scientific knowledge because human's cannot be perfectly objective in of themselves.

This is why science uses instruments and math (which is perfectly objective) to assess the observations scientists make. The process of experimentation increases the objectivity of observations. It's a method for objectively understanding reality.

Compare that with, for example, religion which makes truth claims that you're expected to believe in based upon faith. It uses indoctrination, symbolism, and dogma to describe reality. Science is far superior when it comes to understanding reality.