What does 'objective' actually mean?

[Chriliman]

Maybe a better example is:

I am writing a sentence.

The above is both a claim and objective evidence that it's true that I wrote a sentence.

 

[Chriliman]

Knowledge of what?

Of what is true.

 

[bhsmte]

Round and round we go.

 

[quatona]

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

Is it that time of the month, again?

 

[Freodin]

Maybe a better example is:

I am writing a sentence.

The above is both a claim and objective evidence that it's true that I wrote a sentence.

Only because this is self-referential. It doesn't work for more general statements... at all.

 

[HitchSlap]

... and so it goes...

 

[bhsmte]

Is it that time of the month, again?

Hilarious!!!

 

[Chriliman]

Hilarious!!!

I chuckled a little

 

[expos4ever]

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

I would rephrase as this:

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

 

[Freodin]

I would rephrase as this:

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

Not even that. You can make claims without believing in them.

 

[Chriliman]

I would rephrase as this:

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

I think that's accurate.

 

[expos4ever]

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.

I agree, but this is a very special case of "self-reference" and is probably not relevant to what you are really interested in addressing.

 

[expos4ever]

Not even that. You can make claims without believing in them.

I agree - I had overlooked the possibility that the claimant might lie in making a claim (or perhaps be mentally incompetent and unable to make a claim that actually reflects a belief they might hold).

 

[expos4ever]

I actually think everyone agrees right now - at least based on the last few posts, especially Chrili's agreeing to:

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

.....assuming the claimant is not lying and is competent in expressing his beliefs.

 

[Chriliman]

I agree - I had overlooked the possibility that the claimant might lie in making a claim (or perhaps be mentally incompetent and unable to make a claim that actually reflects a belief they might hold).

And again, I'm not saying that a claim is always objective evidence of what it's asserting, in some cases it can be, but in most it's not. I am saying that a claim is always objective evidence that can help determine what's true.

So if a liar continues making false claims, eventually you could determine he's lying if his claims start to contradict each other and you could determine this solely based on his claims alone, no other evidence. However, if he only makes one claim that is a lie, you'd need addition evidence to determine the truth. Again, addition claims that contradict the original would be addition evidence.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I am saying that a claim is always objective evidence that can help determine what's true.

How is the claim "I have $20 in my pocket" evidence that can help determine what is true?

 

[bhsmte]

I chuckled a little

And your chuckling is evidence of.............

 

[Freodin]

I actually think everyone agrees right now - at least based on the last few posts, especially Chrili's agreeing to:


.....assuming the claimant is not lying and is competent in expressing his beliefs.

Yep... but all that basically is reduced to is "a claim is evidence that a claim was made".

 

[Freodin]

And again, I'm not saying that a claim is always objective evidence of what it's asserting, in some cases it can be, but in most it's not. I am saying that a claim is always objective evidence that can help determine what's true.

So if a liar continues making false claims, eventually you could determine he's lying if his claims start to contradict each other and you could determine this solely based on his claims alone, no other evidence. However, if he only makes one claim that is a lie, you'd need addition evidence to determine the truth. Again, addition claims that contradict the original would be addition evidence.

That is still false. It was false the first time you made that assertion, and it is false now.

You cannot make any positive statement regarding the truth of a claim only based on the claim. Not even when you are faced with contradicting claims. All you could do is state that one of these claims cannot be true, but you have no way to state which one.

Just look at what you wrote, with reason and honesty.
"...if a liar continues making false claims..."
You have no way to know whether a claim is false only based on the claim. So how would you know if he continues to make false claims?

So no, a claim is not objective evidence that can help determine what is true. Or false.

 

[expos4ever]

And again, I'm not saying that a claim is always objective evidence of what it's asserting, in some cases it can be, but in most it's not.

I think a claim can never be objective evidence to support establishing the truthfulness of the claim, except in those odd, self-referential cases.