Total Posts:54|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Athiest illogic: objective

Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 3:52:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Athiest use a tactic of throwing the word 'objective' around, as if it is some criteria of truth.

Objective means uninfluenced by emotion.

The Athiest thinks 'objective' means empirical repeatable verfiable experimental results.

Here's the scenario:

A man is huddled in the corner of a room.

I state, proclaim, assert "That man is full of fear".

now the questions to expose the dishonest.

Is my statement objective?

Is the man being full of fear "real"?

Is my statement true or false?
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 3:55:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/24/2015 3:52:24 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Athiest use a tactic of throwing the word 'objective' around, as if it is some criteria of truth.

Objective means uninfluenced by emotion.

The Athiest thinks 'objective' means empirical repeatable verfiable experimental results.

Here's the scenario:

A man is huddled in the corner of a room.

I state, proclaim, assert "That man is full of fear".

now the questions to expose the dishonest.

Is my statement objective?

Is the man being full of fear "real"?

Is my statement true or false?

False
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 4:30:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/24/2015 3:52:24 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Athiest use a tactic of throwing the word 'objective' around, as if it is some criteria of truth.

Objective means uninfluenced by emotion.

The Athiest thinks 'objective' means empirical repeatable verfiable experimental results.

Oh no, here is what atheists understand objective to be...

- (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. Synonyms: neutral, unbiased, impartial, open-minded. As one member put it, the removal of the observer from the observation.

Here's the scenario:

A man is huddled in the corner of a room.

I state, proclaim, assert "That man is full of fear".

now the questions to expose the dishonest.

Is my statement objective?

Is the man being full of fear "real"?

Is my statement true or false?

Your statement could be true or false depending on the observation. Perhaps, the man is just cold and seeks warmth in the corner of the room. By what observation are you proclaiming the man is full of fear?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 4:33:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/24/2015 3:52:24 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Athiest use a tactic of throwing the word 'objective' around, as if it is some criteria of truth.

Objective means uninfluenced by emotion.

The Athiest thinks 'objective' means empirical repeatable verfiable experimental results.

Here's the scenario:

A man is huddled in the corner of a room.

I state, proclaim, assert "That man is full of fear".

now the questions to expose the dishonest.

Is my statement objective?

Is the man being full of fear "real"?

Is my statement true or false?

Hey Mhyk.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
BOO.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 4:38:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/24/2015 3:52:24 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Athiest use a tactic of throwing the word 'objective' around, as if it is some criteria of truth.

Objective means uninfluenced by emotion.

The Athiest thinks 'objective' means empirical repeatable verfiable experimental results.

Here's the scenario:

A man is huddled in the corner of a room.

I state, proclaim, assert "That man is full of fear".

now the questions to expose the dishonest.

Is my statement objective?

Is the man being full of fear "real"?

Is my statement true or false?

Your statement cannot be verified or falsifed simply by looking. It would be more accurate to say that he seems to be full of fear but one cannot be certain without acquiring more information. Your statement is fully subjective because you are judging based on your interpretation of his actions as you observe him. You have not followed up to ascertain if your assessment of his emotional state is accurate so all you have at that moment is an untested hypothesis. Your question seems pointless at that juncture.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 4:48:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/24/2015 3:52:24 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Athiest use a tactic of throwing the word 'objective' around, as if it is some criteria of truth.

Objective means uninfluenced by emotion.

...or opinion.

The Athiest thinks 'objective' means empirical repeatable verfiable experimental results.

If something is objective, then the observation that determined that should be repeatable and verifiable, I would think.

Here's the scenario:

A man is huddled in the corner of a room.

I state, proclaim, assert "That man is full of fear".

Not in a literal sense, right? ;)

now the questions to expose the dishonest.

Is my statement objective?

Your statement reflects an observation, so it in of and itself is not objective. The subject of the statement that is observed may be objective.

Is the man being full of fear "real"?

Based upon the physical state of the man's brain in terms of neurochemistry, we may be able to determine that this observed state of fear is objective.

Is my statement true or false?

Depends on whether or not it correlates with the results from the above evaluation.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 5:01:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/24/2015 3:52:24 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Athiest use a tactic of throwing the word 'objective' around, as if it is some criteria of truth.

Objective means uninfluenced by emotion.

The Athiest thinks 'objective' means empirical repeatable verfiable experimental results.
No, I understand "objective" to mean response mind independent. But let's do with yours.

Here's the scenario:

A man is huddled in the corner of a room.

I state, proclaim, assert "That man is full of fear".

now the questions to expose the dishonest.

Is my statement objective?

Is the man being full of fear "real"?

Is my statement true or false?

Thanks, this must be the greatest strawman I have seen today.
The objectivity, as you claim atheists to understand it, is concerning the evaluating of evidence as being free from personal bias not the evidence itself.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 5:35:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/24/2015 4:48:29 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/24/2015 3:52:24 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Athiest use a tactic of throwing the word 'objective' around, as if it is some criteria of truth.

Objective means uninfluenced by emotion.

...or opinion.

Now that the trolls are out of the way.

Opinion doesn't mean subjective.


The Athiest thinks 'objective' means empirical repeatable verfiable experimental results.

If something is objective, then the observation that determined that should be repeatable and verifiable, I would think.

Certainly not. If I observe a crater and smoke in my back yard I can hold the objective position that it was a meteorite.


Here's the scenario:

A man is huddled in the corner of a room.

I state, proclaim, assert "That man is full of fear".

Not in a literal sense, right? ;)

Does me saying it in a non literal way make the statement false or untrue?


now the questions to expose the dishonest.

Is my statement objective?

Your statement reflects an observation, so it in of and itself is not objective. The subject of the statement that is observed may be objective.

Is my observation influenced by emotion? If no then it is objective.


Is the man being full of fear "real"?

Based upon the physical state of the man's brain in terms of neurochemistry, we may be able to determine that this observed state of fear is objective.

Objective doesn't mean the result of some experiment. It means the conclusion or the account of the event and facts are not influenced by emotions.


Is my statement true or false?

Depends on whether or not it correlates with the results from the above evaluation.

The main criteria for a something being true is if it actually is true. But let's consider for argument sake that 'true' is what is in accordance with facts and reality.

In this case my statement maybe true. With no more available info discerning it's validity against other equally evidenced statements is impossible.

Objective doesn't mean true. Subjective experiences can still assert real truths.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 6:13:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Start with an incomplete definition, follow it with a strawman, provide an example that fails to illustrate your point, and apply the label "troll" to anyone who points out where you're wrong. Brilliant thread!
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 6:13:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/24/2015 5:35:21 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 9/24/2015 4:48:29 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/24/2015 3:52:24 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Athiest use a tactic of throwing the word 'objective' around, as if it is some criteria of truth.

Objective means uninfluenced by emotion.

...or opinion.

Now that the trolls are out of the way.

Opinion doesn't mean subjective.


The Athiest thinks 'objective' means empirical repeatable verfiable experimental results.

If something is objective, then the observation that determined that should be repeatable and verifiable, I would think.

Certainly not. If I observe a crater and smoke in my back yard I can hold the objective position that it was a meteorite.


Here's the scenario:

A man is huddled in the corner of a room.

I state, proclaim, assert "That man is full of fear".

Not in a literal sense, right? ;)

Does me saying it in a non literal way make the statement false or untrue?


now the questions to expose the dishonest.

Is my statement objective?

Your statement reflects an observation, so it in of and itself is not objective. The subject of the statement that is observed may be objective.

Is my observation influenced by emotion? If no then it is objective.


Is the man being full of fear "real"?

Based upon the physical state of the man's brain in terms of neurochemistry, we may be able to determine that this observed state of fear is objective.

Objective doesn't mean the result of some experiment. It means the conclusion or the account of the event and facts are not influenced by emotions.


Is my statement true or false?

Depends on whether or not it correlates with the results from the above evaluation.

The main criteria for a something being true is if it actually is true. But let's consider for argument sake that 'true' is what is in accordance with facts and reality.

In this case my statement maybe true. With no more available info discerning it's validity against other equally evidenced statements is impossible.

Objective doesn't mean true. Subjective experiences can still assert real truths.

Only if they can be independently verified. As long as your experience is the only evidence it cannot be considered true to anyone except you.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 6:16:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/24/2015 5:35:21 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 9/24/2015 4:48:29 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/24/2015 3:52:24 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Athiest use a tactic of throwing the word 'objective' around, as if it is some criteria of truth.

Objective means uninfluenced by emotion.

...or opinion.

Now that the trolls are out of the way.

Opinion doesn't mean subjective.

Objective : Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. [Oxford]
Subjective : Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. [Oxford]

Opinions are derived from the mind, and reflect the judgment of an observation by that mind. If you were to simply report what you saw without any explanation attached to it, it wouldn't be an opinion.

The Athiest thinks 'objective' means empirical repeatable verfiable experimental results.

If something is objective, then the observation that determined that should be repeatable and verifiable, I would think.

Certainly not. If I observe a crater and smoke in my back yard I can hold the objective position that it was a meteorite.

Well how did you determine that in the first place? You observed the evidence; the smoke and the crater. If you also observed the meteorite, then you are a bit safer in drawing that conclusion.

Regardless of this, you are forming a conclusion based on your experiences and knowledge which may or may not reflect what actually (objectively) happened. For instance, the crater could have been caused by something dropped from a plane, or by something that exploded in the ground. Further, even if you see the meteorite, it is possible it may be something else that closely resembles a meteorite. Alternatively, you may have been hallucinating.

For all of the reasons that cannot be ruled out, further experimentation and observation is needed in order to draw a conclusion that more confidently represents the objective cause of the crater and smoke. While we can never truly know 100% what happened (epistemic barrier), we can use further means of observation (i.e. additional observers, experimentation) to draw as close as we can to it.

Here's the scenario:

A man is huddled in the corner of a room.

I state, proclaim, assert "That man is full of fear".

Not in a literal sense, right? ;)

Does me saying it in a non literal way make the statement false or untrue?

No, because I understand the concept that you were intending to convey with those words. That is what is evaluated; not the words, themselves.

Sorry, I was just trying to be a little humorous, here.

now the questions to expose the dishonest.

Is my statement objective?

Your statement reflects an observation, so it in of and itself is not objective. The subject of the statement that is observed may be objective.

Is my observation influenced by emotion? If no then it is objective.

Addressed above.

Is the man being full of fear "real"?

Based upon the physical state of the man's brain in terms of neurochemistry, we may be able to determine that this observed state of fear is objective.

Objective doesn't mean the result of some experiment. It means the conclusion or the account of the event and facts are not influenced by emotions.

No, you're right. It doesn't. But, being objective means that it is true independent of our minds. First, one has to realize just how flawed the human mind can be, given all of the very imperfect processes and side-effects one's memories are subject to (As SNP1 mentioned in another thread: http://www.debate.org...). Not just in "recording" them, but in recalling them and retaining correct associations. Did you know that the very words you use the ask a question can influence someone's memory? That's called the Framing Effect.

Anyhow, my response above was made because I don't know enough about the situation because it is based on one person's observation and judgment. You drew the conclusion that he was "full of fear" by observing the symptoms and behaviors you have associated with the phenomena. However, his actions could always be the results of something that hasn't been considered or perceived, like perhaps he's acting.

The purpose of the experimentation is to strengthen the confidence that is had by removing as much as the analysis from our biased human minds as possible. Although this is impossible to accomplish 100%, the scientific method represents our effort towards this. If 100 people all observed the same thing and came to the same conclusion, they may have been fooled by an actor's ability or they may simply reinforce each other's opinions though conformity and group psychological effects.

Mind you, all of this doesn't mean that your observation is necessarily wrong.

Is my statement true or false?

Depends on whether or not it correlates with the results from the above evaluation.

The main criteria for a something being true is if it actually is true. But let's consider for argument sake that 'true' is what is in accordance with facts and reality.

I know the meaning of "truth" is debated philosophically, but I'm not the privy to that. But I'll certainly agree to this.

In this case my statement maybe true. With no more available info discerning it's validity against other equally evidenced statements is impossible.

Objective doesn't mean true. Subjective experiences can still assert real truths.

I disagree, in that, the essential and base facts that you observe (the behaviors and symptoms displayed) can be objective, but the conclusion that you drew (experiencing fear) is not, in that it is your opinion or the conclusion that you drew based upon those observations.

To provide a parallel example. If a man witnessed a purse snatching; the objective statements he can make are:

1. A man grabbed and took a purse that a woman held.
2. The two engaged in a physical confrontation.
3. The man ran off with the purse.
4. The woman screamed, "Help! I've been robbed!"

To conclude that the man was a robber is an opinion drawn from the analysis of the observations, or basic facts (evidence).
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 6:16:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/24/2015 3:52:24 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Athiest use a tactic of throwing the word 'objective' around, as if it is some criteria of truth.

Objective means uninfluenced by emotion.

The Athiest thinks 'objective' means empirical repeatable verfiable experimental results.

Here's the scenario:

A man is huddled in the corner of a room.

I state, proclaim, assert "That man is full of fear".

now the questions to expose the dishonest.

Is my statement objective?

Is the man being full of fear "real"?

Is my statement true or false?

I thought objective meant the opposite to subjective,

The objective world meaning to represent the outside and the subjective meaning to represent the inside world.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 7:30:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/24/2015 6:13:16 PM, Burzmali wrote:
Start with an incomplete definition, follow it with a strawman, provide an example that fails to illustrate your point, and apply the label "troll" to anyone who points out where you're wrong. Brilliant thread!

Make bare assertions that something is a strawman or fallacious while never addressing the point.

Troll much?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 7:38:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/24/2015 6:13:26 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 9/24/2015 5:35:21 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 9/24/2015 4:48:29 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/24/2015 3:52:24 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Athiest use a tactic of throwing the word 'objective' around, as if it is some criteria of truth.

Objective means uninfluenced by emotion.

...or opinion.

Now that the trolls are out of the way.

Opinion doesn't mean subjective.


The Athiest thinks 'objective' means empirical repeatable verfiable experimental results.

If something is objective, then the observation that determined that should be repeatable and verifiable, I would think.

Certainly not. If I observe a crater and smoke in my back yard I can hold the objective position that it was a meteorite.


Here's the scenario:

A man is huddled in the corner of a room.

I state, proclaim, assert "That man is full of fear".

Not in a literal sense, right? ;)

Does me saying it in a non literal way make the statement false or untrue?


now the questions to expose the dishonest.

Is my statement objective?

Your statement reflects an observation, so it in of and itself is not objective. The subject of the statement that is observed may be objective.

Is my observation influenced by emotion? If no then it is objective.


Is the man being full of fear "real"?

Based upon the physical state of the man's brain in terms of neurochemistry, we may be able to determine that this observed state of fear is objective.

Objective doesn't mean the result of some experiment. It means the conclusion or the account of the event and facts are not influenced by emotions.


Is my statement true or false?

Depends on whether or not it correlates with the results from the above evaluation.

The main criteria for a something being true is if it actually is true. But let's consider for argument sake that 'true' is what is in accordance with facts and reality.

In this case my statement maybe true. With no more available info discerning it's validity against other equally evidenced statements is impossible.

Objective doesn't mean true. Subjective experiences can still assert real truths.

Only if they can be independently verified. As long as your experience is the only evidence it cannot be considered true to anyone except you.

True is true and it is so for everyone.

But if you would like to cite some sources explain how what you said has any resemblance to logic, I debate you on it.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 7:40:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/24/2015 6:16:01 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/24/2015 5:35:21 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 9/24/2015 4:48:29 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/24/2015 3:52:24 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Athiest use a tactic of throwing the word 'objective' around, as if it is some criteria of truth.

Objective means uninfluenced by emotion.

...or opinion.

Now that the trolls are out of the way.

Opinion doesn't mean subjective.

Objective : Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. [Oxford]
Subjective : Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. [Oxford]

Opinions are derived from the mind, and reflect the judgment of an observation by that mind. If you were to simply report what you saw without any explanation attached to it, it wouldn't be an opinion.

The Athiest thinks 'objective' means empirical repeatable verfiable experimental results.

If something is objective, then the observation that determined that should be repeatable and verifiable, I would think.

Certainly not. If I observe a crater and smoke in my back yard I can hold the objective position that it was a meteorite.

Well how did you determine that in the first place? You observed the evidence; the smoke and the crater. If you also observed the meteorite, then you are a bit safer in drawing that conclusion.

Regardless of this, you are forming a conclusion based on your experiences and knowledge which may or may not reflect what actually (objectively) happened. For instance, the crater could have been caused by something dropped from a plane, or by something that exploded in the ground. Further, even if you see the meteorite, it is possible it may be something else that closely resembles a meteorite. Alternatively, you may have been hallucinating.


You don't know what objective means.

For all of the reasons that cannot be ruled out, further experimentation and observation is needed in order to draw a conclusion that more confidently represents the objective cause of the crater and smoke. While we can never truly know 100% what happened (epistemic barrier), we can use further means of observation (i.e. additional observers, experimentation) to draw as close as we can to it.

Here's the scenario:

A man is huddled in the corner of a room.

I state, proclaim, assert "That man is full of fear".

Not in a literal sense, right? ;)

Does me saying it in a non literal way make the statement false or untrue?

No, because I understand the concept that you were intending to convey with those words. That is what is evaluated; not the words, themselves.

Sorry, I was just trying to be a little humorous, here.

now the questions to expose the dishonest.

Is my statement objective?

Your statement reflects an observation, so it in of and itself is not objective. The subject of the statement that is observed may be objective.

Is my observation influenced by emotion? If no then it is objective.

Addressed above.

Is the man being full of fear "real"?

Based upon the physical state of the man's brain in terms of neurochemistry, we may be able to determine that this observed state of fear is objective.

Objective doesn't mean the result of some experiment. It means the conclusion or the account of the event and facts are not influenced by emotions.

No, you're right. It doesn't. But, being objective means that it is true independent of our minds. First, one has to realize just how flawed the human mind can be, given all of the very imperfect processes and side-effects one's memories are subject to (As SNP1 mentioned in another thread: http://www.debate.org...). Not just in "recording" them, but in recalling them and retaining correct associations. Did you know that the very words you use the ask a question can influence someone's memory? That's called the Framing Effect.

Anyhow, my response above was made because I don't know enough about the situation because it is based on one person's observation and judgment. You drew the conclusion that he was "full of fear" by observing the symptoms and behaviors you have associated with the phenomena. However, his actions could always be the results of something that hasn't been considered or perceived, like perhaps he's acting.

The purpose of the experimentation is to strengthen the confidence that is had by removing as much as the analysis from our biased human minds as possible. Although this is impossible to accomplish 100%, the scientific method represents our effort towards this. If 100 people all observed the same thing and came to the same conclusion, they may have been fooled by an actor's ability or they may simply reinforce each other's opinions though conformity and group psychological effects.

Mind you, all of this doesn't mean that your observation is necessarily wrong.

Is my statement true or false?

Depends on whether or not it correlates with the results from the above evaluation.

The main criteria for a something being true is if it actually is true. But let's consider for argument sake that 'true' is what is in accordance with facts and reality.

I know the meaning of "truth" is debated philosophically, but I'm not the privy to that. But I'll certainly agree to this.

In this case my statement maybe true. With no more available info discerning it's validity against other equally evidenced statements is impossible.

Objective doesn't mean true. Subjective experiences can still assert real truths.

I disagree, in that, the essential and base facts that you observe (the behaviors and symptoms displayed) can be objective, but the conclusion that you drew (experiencing fear) is not, in that it is your opinion or the conclusion that you drew based upon those observations.

To provide a parallel example. If a man witnessed a purse snatching; the objective statements he can make are:

1. A man grabbed and took a purse that a woman held.
2. The two engaged in a physical confrontation.
3. The man ran off with the purse.
4. The woman screamed, "Help! I've been robbed!"

To conclude that the man was a robber is an opinion drawn from the analysis of the observations, or basic facts (evidence).
Chaosism
Posts: 2,674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 7:51:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/24/2015 7:40:32 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

Objective : Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. [Oxford]
Subjective : Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. [Oxford]

You don't know what objective means.

If something is objective, it is true in reality regardless of what anyone perceives or thinks. For instance, a rock's existence is objective, in that, the rock is there regardless of anyone's opinion or perception; it exists independent of the mind.

Is this incorrect?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 7:58:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/24/2015 6:16:01 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/24/2015 5:35:21 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 9/24/2015 4:48:29 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/24/2015 3:52:24 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Athiest use a tactic of throwing the word 'objective' around, as if it is some criteria of truth.

Objective means uninfluenced by emotion.

...or opinion.

Now that the trolls are out of the way.

Opinion doesn't mean subjective.

Objective : Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. [Oxford]
Subjective : Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. [Oxford]

Opinions are derived from the mind, and reflect the judgment of an observation by that mind. If you were to simply report what you saw without any explanation attached to it, it wouldn't be an opinion.

The Athiest thinks 'objective' means empirical repeatable verfiable experimental results.

If something is objective, then the observation that determined that should be repeatable and verifiable, I would think.

Certainly not. If I observe a crater and smoke in my back yard I can hold the objective position that it was a meteorite.

Well how did you determine that in the first place? You observed the evidence; the smoke and the crater. If you also observed the meteorite, then you are a bit safer in drawing that conclusion.

Regardless of this, you are forming a conclusion based on your experiences and knowledge which may or may not reflect what actually (objectively) happened. For instance, the crater could have been caused by something dropped from a plane, or by something that exploded in the ground. Further, even if you see the meteorite, it is possible it may be something else that closely resembles a meteorite. Alternatively, you may have been hallucinating.

For all of the reasons that cannot be ruled out, further experimentation and observation is needed in order to draw a conclusion that more confidently represents the objective cause of the crater and smoke. While we can never truly know 100% what happened (epistemic barrier), we can use further means of observation (i.e. additional observers, experimentation) to draw as close as we can to it.

Here's the scenario:

A man is huddled in the corner of a room.

I state, proclaim, assert "That man is full of fear".

Not in a literal sense, right? ;)

Does me saying it in a non literal way make the statement false or untrue?

No, because I understand the concept that you were intending to convey with those words. That is what is evaluated; not the words, themselves.

Sorry, I was just trying to be a little humorous, here.

now the questions to expose the dishonest.

Is my statement objective?

Your statement reflects an observation, so it in of and itself is not objective. The subject of the statement that is observed may be objective.

Is my observation influenced by emotion? If no then it is objective.

Addressed above.

Is the man being full of fear "real"?

Based upon the physical state of the man's brain in terms of neurochemistry, we may be able to determine that this observed state of fear is objective.

Objective doesn't mean the result of some experiment. It means the conclusion or the account of the event and facts are not influenced by emotions.

No, you're right. It doesn't. But, being objective means that it is true independent of our minds. First, one has to realize just how flawed the human mind can be, given all of the very imperfect processes and side-effects one's memories are subject to (As SNP1 mentioned in another thread: http://www.debate.org...). Not just in "recording" them, but in recalling them and retaining correct associations. Did you know that the very words you use the ask a question can influence someone's memory? That's called the Framing Effect.

Anyhow, my response above was made because I don't know enough about the situation because it is based on one person's observation and judgment. You drew the conclusion that he was "full of fear" by observing the symptoms and behaviors you have associated with the phenomena. However, his actions could always be the results of something that hasn't been considered or perceived, like perhaps he's acting.

The purpose of the experimentation is to strengthen the confidence that is had by removing as much as the analysis from our biased human minds as possible. Although this is impossible to accomplish 100%, the scientific method represents our effort towards this. If 100 people all observed the same thing and came to the same conclusion, they may have been fooled by an actor's ability or they may simply reinforce each other's opinions though conformity and group psychological effects.

Mind you, all of this doesn't mean that your observation is necessarily wrong.

Is my statement true or false?

Depends on whether or not it correlates with the results from the above evaluation.

The main criteria for a something being true is if it actually is true. But let's consider for argument sake that 'true' is what is in accordance with facts and reality.

I know the meaning of "truth" is debated philosophically, but I'm not the privy to that. But I'll certainly agree to this.

In this case my statement maybe true. With no more available info discerning it's validity against other equally evidenced statements is impossible.

Objective doesn't mean true. Subjective experiences can still assert real truths.

I disagree, in that, the essential and base facts that you observe (the behaviors and symptoms displayed) can be objective, but the conclusion that you drew (experiencing fear) is not, in that it is your opinion or the conclusion that you drew based upon those observations.

To provide a parallel example. If a man witnessed a purse snatching; the objective statements he can make are:

1. A man grabbed and took a purse that a woman held.
2. The two engaged in a physical confrontation.
3. The man ran off with the purse.
4. The woman screamed, "Help! I've been robbed!"

To conclude that the man was a robber is an opinion drawn from the analysis of the observations, or basic facts (evidence).

Actually my conclusion would be an objective conclusion. This a a slippery road for Athiest aswell becuase your logic implies we can't make discernments of truth from observations.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 7:59:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/24/2015 7:38:03 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 9/24/2015 6:13:26 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 9/24/2015 5:35:21 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 9/24/2015 4:48:29 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/24/2015 3:52:24 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Athiest use a tactic of throwing the word 'objective' around, as if it is some criteria of truth.

Objective means uninfluenced by emotion.

...or opinion.

Now that the trolls are out of the way.

Opinion doesn't mean subjective.


The Athiest thinks 'objective' means empirical repeatable verfiable experimental results.

If something is objective, then the observation that determined that should be repeatable and verifiable, I would think.

Certainly not. If I observe a crater and smoke in my back yard I can hold the objective position that it was a meteorite.


Here's the scenario:

A man is huddled in the corner of a room.

I state, proclaim, assert "That man is full of fear".

Not in a literal sense, right? ;)

Does me saying it in a non literal way make the statement false or untrue?


now the questions to expose the dishonest.

Is my statement objective?

Your statement reflects an observation, so it in of and itself is not objective. The subject of the statement that is observed may be objective.

Is my observation influenced by emotion? If no then it is objective.


Is the man being full of fear "real"?

Based upon the physical state of the man's brain in terms of neurochemistry, we may be able to determine that this observed state of fear is objective.

Objective doesn't mean the result of some experiment. It means the conclusion or the account of the event and facts are not influenced by emotions.


Is my statement true or false?

Depends on whether or not it correlates with the results from the above evaluation.

The main criteria for a something being true is if it actually is true. But let's consider for argument sake that 'true' is what is in accordance with facts and reality.

In this case my statement maybe true. With no more available info discerning it's validity against other equally evidenced statements is impossible.

Objective doesn't mean true. Subjective experiences can still assert real truths.

Only if they can be independently verified. As long as your experience is the only evidence it cannot be considered true to anyone except you.

True is true and it is so for everyone.

But if you would like to cite some sources explain how what you said has any resemblance to logic, I debate you on it.

If you tell me you heard a voice in an empty room and it wasn't yours, I'd require some kind of evidence before I would take it as true. If all you have is your own subjective experience with no other corroborating information then your assertion can only considered actually true by you. If you can't understand that simple circumstance then no amount of discussion will help you.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 8:04:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/24/2015 3:52:24 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Athiest use a tactic of throwing the word 'objective' around, as if it is some criteria of truth.

Objective means uninfluenced by emotion.
Objectivity means a great deal more than that, Mhykiel. The idea of objectivity has developed a great deal in the last two centuries, and is of much broader concern than just to atheists. Objectivity now underpins all the STEM disciplines; it's critical in law, accounting, public policy, emergency services, defense, intelligence, and business management.

Despite which, I believe it's not well understood -- as your own thread seems to attest.

I think it's time you cited some sources deeper than the first online dictionary you can find to agree with you.
Hitchian
Posts: 764
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 8:07:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/24/2015 3:52:24 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Athiest use a tactic of throwing the word 'objective' around, as if it is some criteria of truth.

Objective means uninfluenced by emotion.

The Athiest thinks 'objective' means empirical repeatable verfiable experimental results.

Here's the scenario:

A man is huddled in the corner of a room.

I state, proclaim, assert "That man is full of fear".

now the questions to expose the dishonest.

Is my statement objective?

Is the man being full of fear "real"?

Is my statement true or false?

Read on Epistemology 101.
You're confused.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 8:13:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/24/2015 7:51:45 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/24/2015 7:40:32 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

Objective : Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. [Oxford]
Subjective : Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. [Oxford]

You don't know what objective means.

If something is objective, it is true in reality regardless of what anyone perceives or thinks. For instance, a rock's existence is objective, in that, the rock is there regardless of anyone's opinion or perception; it exists independent of the mind.

Is this incorrect?

Yes it is incorrect. Void of a person's perception is not what 'objective' means. Read a few dictionaries.

And 2nd in some quantum physics and philosophy there is a notion that something does not exist while it is not being percieved or measured or interacted with.

At any point if I see a rock, and think or say 'hey there is a rock there' it is an objective observation becuase I have no feelings either way if the rock were there or not.

Accordi'g to what you are saying is some experiment has to be used to tell if something is objective.

That's not true. It is objective if it is uninfluenced by emotion in the reciting of facts.

But what is 'truth'? That which agrees with tbe facts.

I can recite facts subjectively as well. While not all thi'gs subjective are based on facts THAT does mean all things influenced by emotion are 'false'.

Because truth means it adhere to reality.

In addition is fear real? Remarking on some one giving all the signs of being afraid, am I drawing from my own feelings? No. I'm drawi'g from common patterns between behavoir and expressed emotions. These conditions allow me to make an unbiased appraisal of the man's emotional well being.

Unbiased as in 'objective'
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 8:24:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/24/2015 7:59:42 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 9/24/2015 7:38:03 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 9/24/2015 6:13:26 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 9/24/2015 5:35:21 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 9/24/2015 4:48:29 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/24/2015 3:52:24 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Athiest use a tactic of throwing the word 'objective' around, as if it is some criteria of truth.

Objective means uninfluenced by emotion.

...or opinion.

Now that the trolls are out of the way.

Opinion doesn't mean subjective.


The Athiest thinks 'objective' means empirical repeatable verfiable experimental results.

If something is objective, then the observation that determined that should be repeatable and verifiable, I would think.

Certainly not. If I observe a crater and smoke in my back yard I can hold the objective position that it was a meteorite.


Here's the scenario:

A man is huddled in the corner of a room.

I state, proclaim, assert "That man is full of fear".

Not in a literal sense, right? ;)

Does me saying it in a non literal way make the statement false or untrue?


now the questions to expose the dishonest.

Is my statement objective?

Your statement reflects an observation, so it in of and itself is not objective. The subject of the statement that is observed may be objective.

Is my observation influenced by emotion? If no then it is objective.


Is the man being full of fear "real"?

Based upon the physical state of the man's brain in terms of neurochemistry, we may be able to determine that this observed state of fear is objective.

Objective doesn't mean the result of some experiment. It means the conclusion or the account of the event and facts are not influenced by emotions.


Is my statement true or false?

Depends on whether or not it correlates with the results from the above evaluation.

The main criteria for a something being true is if it actually is true. But let's consider for argument sake that 'true' is what is in accordance with facts and reality.

In this case my statement maybe true. With no more available info discerning it's validity against other equally evidenced statements is impossible.

Objective doesn't mean true. Subjective experiences can still assert real truths.

Only if they can be independently verified. As long as your experience is the only evidence it cannot be considered true to anyone except you.

True is true and it is so for everyone.

But if you would like to cite some sources explain how what you said has any resemblance to logic, I debate you on it.

If you tell me you heard a voice in an empty room and it wasn't yours, I'd require some kind of evidence before I would take it as true. If all you have is your own subjective experience with no other corroborating information then your assertion can only considered actually true by you. If you can't understand that simple circumstance then no amount of discussion will help you.

If you don't understand the principle of excluded middle in logic and how it means something can't be true for me and false for everyone else then NO amount rational intellectual discussion will educate you!!
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 8:26:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/24/2015 8:07:37 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 9/24/2015 3:52:24 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Athiest use a tactic of throwing the word 'objective' around, as if it is some criteria of truth.

Objective means uninfluenced by emotion.

The Athiest thinks 'objective' means empirical repeatable verfiable experimental results.

Here's the scenario:

A man is huddled in the corner of a room.

I state, proclaim, assert "That man is full of fear".

now the questions to expose the dishonest.

Is my statement objective?

Is the man being full of fear "real"?

Is my statement true or false?

Read on Epistemology 101.
You're confused.

I have can you be more narrow in your contention?
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 8:33:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/24/2015 8:13:34 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 9/24/2015 7:51:45 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/24/2015 7:40:32 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

Objective : Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. [Oxford]
Subjective : Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. [Oxford]

You don't know what objective means.

If something is objective, it is true in reality regardless of what anyone perceives or thinks. For instance, a rock's existence is objective, in that, the rock is there regardless of anyone's opinion or perception; it exists independent of the mind.

Is this incorrect?

Yes it is incorrect. Void of a person's perception is not what 'objective' means. Read a few dictionaries.

And 2nd in some quantum physics and philosophy there is a notion that something does not exist while it is not being percieved or measured or interacted with.

At any point if I see a rock, and think or say 'hey there is a rock there' it is an objective observation becuase I have no feelings either way if the rock were there or not.

Accordi'g to what you are saying is some experiment has to be used to tell if something is objective.

That's not true. It is objective if it is uninfluenced by emotion in the reciting of facts.

But what is 'truth'? That which agrees with tbe facts.

I can recite facts subjectively as well. While not all thi'gs subjective are based on facts THAT does mean all things influenced by emotion are 'false'.

Because truth means it adhere to reality.

In addition is fear real? Remarking on some one giving all the signs of being afraid, am I drawing from my own feelings? No. I'm drawi'g from common patterns between behavoir and expressed emotions. These conditions allow me to make an unbiased appraisal of the man's emotional well being.

Unbiased as in 'objective'

You've taken his actions as if they were yours. That's subjective. He might be cold. He might be sick. Your subjective judgment of his mental state is just that, your subjective judgment. Until you can ascertain in some way you've not objectively demonstrated anything.

Yes, fear is real. It's an emotion and a survival reaction that almost every human being possesses, What's your point?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 8:40:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/24/2015 8:33:22 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 9/24/2015 8:13:34 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 9/24/2015 7:51:45 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/24/2015 7:40:32 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

Objective : Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. [Oxford]
Subjective : Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. [Oxford]

You don't know what objective means.

If something is objective, it is true in reality regardless of what anyone perceives or thinks. For instance, a rock's existence is objective, in that, the rock is there regardless of anyone's opinion or perception; it exists independent of the mind.

Is this incorrect?

Yes it is incorrect. Void of a person's perception is not what 'objective' means. Read a few dictionaries.

And 2nd in some quantum physics and philosophy there is a notion that something does not exist while it is not being percieved or measured or interacted with.

At any point if I see a rock, and think or say 'hey there is a rock there' it is an objective observation becuase I have no feelings either way if the rock were there or not.

Accordi'g to what you are saying is some experiment has to be used to tell if something is objective.

That's not true. It is objective if it is uninfluenced by emotion in the reciting of facts.

But what is 'truth'? That which agrees with tbe facts.

I can recite facts subjectively as well. While not all thi'gs subjective are based on facts THAT does mean all things influenced by emotion are 'false'.

Because truth means it adhere to reality.

In addition is fear real? Remarking on some one giving all the signs of being afraid, am I drawing from my own feelings? No. I'm drawi'g from common patterns between behavoir and expressed emotions. These conditions allow me to make an unbiased appraisal of the man's emotional well being.

Unbiased as in 'objective'

You've taken his actions as if they were yours. That's subjective. He might be cold. He might be sick. Your subjective judgment of his mental state is just that, your subjective judgment. Until you can ascertain in some way you've not objectively demonstrated anything.

Yes, fear is real. It's an emotion and a survival reaction that almost every human being possesses, What's your point?

Fine I add that he is staring intently at a spider in the far corner, screaming in high pitched shrills, shaking erratically, extending his arms out toward the spider.

It actually makes no difference how much info you have to whether the observation and statement is objective or not.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 8:46:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/24/2015 8:13:34 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 9/24/2015 7:51:45 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/24/2015 7:40:32 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

Objective : Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. [Oxford]
Subjective : Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. [Oxford]

You don't know what objective means.

If something is objective, it is true in reality regardless of what anyone perceives or thinks. For instance, a rock's existence is objective, in that, the rock is there regardless of anyone's opinion or perception; it exists independent of the mind.

Is this incorrect?

Yes it is incorrect. Void of a person's perception is not what 'objective' means. Read a few dictionaries.

OK - you are referring to objective claims, while I was thinking objective facts. I cannot find a definition that supports that 'objective' is merely defined as "without the influence of emotion". They all include opinions, as well.

"An objective claim is a statement about a factual matter-one that can be proved true or false. For factual matters there exist widely recognized criteria and methods to determine whether a claim is true or false. A subjective claim, on the other hand, is not a factual matter; it is an expression of belief, opinion, or personal preference. A subjective claim cannot be proved right or wrong by any generally accepted criteria."
(http://www.butte.edu...)

And 2nd in some quantum physics and philosophy there is a notion that something does not exist while it is not being percieved or measured or interacted with.

At any point if I see a rock, and think or say 'hey there is a rock there' it is an objective observation becuase I have no feelings either way if the rock were there or not.

This is an objective claim about the truth of reality, which may or may not by an objective fact. If you were to say that's a pretty rock, then that claim is subjective, because it cannot be factual.

Accordi'g to what you are saying is some experiment has to be used to tell if something is objective.

No, it just has to be possible to do so, somehow. It is possible to demonstrate that the rock is factually there (pick it up, show someone else), but one cannot demonstrate that the rock is pretty, factually.

That's not true. It is objective if it is uninfluenced by emotion in the reciting of facts.

But what is 'truth'? That which agrees with tbe facts.

But how is the "truth" of the facts, discerned? According to the previously presented definition of 'true', it is ultimately impossible to discern objective fact, or "truth". Everything we know about reality is gained through our perception (or senses), which is inarguably flawed. In order to determine the truth of our perceptions, we must compare them with what is in accordance to reality. Unfortunately, this means that we must have access to the reality that is beyond our perceptions to which to compare our perception of reality, which alone defeats the point of the comparison. We can make objective claims, but those don't necessarily correlate with objective facts.

I can recite facts subjectively as well. While not all thi'gs subjective are based on facts THAT does mean all things influenced by emotion are 'false'.

Because truth means it adhere to reality.

In addition is fear real? Remarking on some one giving all the signs of being afraid, am I drawing from my own feelings? No. I'm drawi'g from common patterns between behavoir and expressed emotions. These conditions allow me to make an unbiased appraisal of the man's emotional well being.

Unbiased as in 'objective'

Unbiased is impossible. We are subject to all kind of flaws, prior knowledge and experiences, false knowledge, imperfect senses, and so on. Emotions are not the only source of bias. Any claim about the truth of reality is an objective claim, which is separate from the objective facts. Your conclusion, which is a claim about reality, is not necessarily true, because it is influenced by knowledge and the lack thereof.
Hitchian
Posts: 764
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 9:02:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/24/2015 3:52:24 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Athiest use a tactic of throwing the word 'objective' around, as if it is some criteria of truth.

A tactic? You're insinuating a deceitful purpose and casting doubts on the sincerity of millions and millions of people. You're off to a highly questionable start.


Objective means uninfluenced by emotion.


Not the root meaning, but a serviceable definition.

The Athiest thinks 'objective' means empirical repeatable verfiable experimental results.


No.
What you describe is methodology, namely one associated with Methodological Naturalism, which is currently the premise all natural sciences start off from.

In everyday lives, only the maniac would be as strict. We use a very loose approximation of that method when dealing with everyday facts.

Here's the scenario:

The scenario deals with everyday facts. Not natural phenomena under scientific scrutiny.


A man is huddled in the corner of a room.

I state, proclaim, assert "That man is full of fear".

now the questions to expose the dishonest.

Is my statement objective?

Is the man being full of fear "real"?

Is my statement true or false?

The better question is this: does your statement reflect reality?

Not necessarily.
Man could be faking, he could be an actor, he could be a performance artist, or he might be trying to con you into something.

Many decades after Einstein enunciated general and special relativity, after quantum mechanics has asserted itself as a theory with staggering predictive power, we should be able to get this basic idea straight:

The appearance of things is not always the reality of things.

I have just demonstrated to you that your logic is flawed, as countless other reasons other than genuine fear could explain the man's body language.
You really need to go deeper on epistemology.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 9:10:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/24/2015 7:30:26 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 9/24/2015 6:13:16 PM, Burzmali wrote:
Start with an incomplete definition, follow it with a strawman, provide an example that fails to illustrate your point, and apply the label "troll" to anyone who points out where you're wrong. Brilliant thread!

Make bare assertions that something is a strawman or fallacious while never addressing the point.

Troll much?

Like I said, just whip out that "troll" label when you're challenged. Right in line with most of the rest of this thread. Keep it up.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 9:16:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/24/2015 8:46:41 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/24/2015 8:13:34 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 9/24/2015 7:51:45 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/24/2015 7:40:32 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

Objective : Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. [Oxford]
Subjective : Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. [Oxford]

You don't know what objective means.

If something is objective, it is true in reality regardless of what anyone perceives or thinks. For instance, a rock's existence is objective, in that, the rock is there regardless of anyone's opinion or perception; it exists independent of the mind.

Is this incorrect?

Yes it is incorrect. Void of a person's perception is not what 'objective' means. Read a few dictionaries.

OK - you are referring to objective claims, while I was thinking objective facts. I cannot find a definition that supports that 'objective' is merely defined as "without the influence of emotion". They all include opinions, as well.


Not really opinions don't have to based on facts. But objective means facts not influenced by emotion.

"An objective claim is a statement about a factual matter-one that can be proved true or false. For factual matters there exist widely recognized criteria and methods to determine whether a claim is true or false. A subjective claim, on the other hand, is not a factual matter; it is an expression of belief, opinion, or personal preference. A subjective claim cannot be proved right or wrong by any generally accepted criteria."
(http://www.butte.edu...)


The claim in my example 'that man is full of fear' is a factual matter and objective in it's discernment.

But even subjective matters can be factual and can be real and truthful. Such the claim ' I am afraid' factual true and yet subjective.

And 2nd in some quantum physics and philosophy there is a notion that something does not exist while it is not being percieved or measured or interacted with.

At any point if I see a rock, and think or say 'hey there is a rock there' it is an objective observation becuase I have no feelings either way if the rock were there or not.

This is an objective claim about the truth of reality, which may or may not by an objective fact. If you were to say that's a pretty rock, then that claim is subjective, because it cannot be factual.

Accordi'g to what you are saying is some experiment has to be used to tell if something is objective.

No, it just has to be possible to do so, somehow. It is possible to demonstrate that the rock is factually there (pick it up, show someone else), but one cannot demonstrate that the rock is pretty, factually.

There's no arguement here. I agree the rock being pretty is subjective. I disagree that it takes a demonstration or experiment to make something fact or objective or even true.


That's not true. It is objective if it is uninfluenced by emotion in the reciting of facts.

But what is 'truth'? That which agrees with tbe facts.

But how is the "truth" of the facts, discerned? According to the previously presented definition of 'true', it is ultimately impossible to discern objective fact, or "truth". Everything we know about reality is gained through our perception (or senses), which is inarguably flawed. In order to determine the truth of our perceptions, we must compare them with what is in accordance to reality. Unfortunately, this means that we must have access to the reality that is beyond our perceptions to which to compare our perception of reality, which alone defeats the point of the comparison. We can make objective claims, but those don't necessarily correlate with objective facts.


So you are epistemologically nihilist.

Logic and experiment should have no authority with such a view.

I can recite facts subjectively as well. While not all thi'gs subjective are based on facts THAT does mean all things influenced by emotion are 'false'.

Because truth means it adhere to reality.

In addition is fear real? Remarking on some one giving all the signs of being afraid, am I drawing from my own feelings? No. I'm drawi'g from common patterns between behavoir and expressed emotions. These conditions allow me to make an unbiased appraisal of the man's emotional well being.

Unbiased as in 'objective'

Unbiased is impossible. We are subject to all kind of flaws, prior knowledge and experiences, false knowledge, imperfect senses, and so on. Emotions are not the only source of bias. Any claim about the truth of reality is an objective claim, which is separate from the objective facts. Your conclusion, which is a claim about reality, is not necessarily true, because it is influenced by knowledge and the lack thereof.

So you flounder on my last question and dance around my first.

You say there is a difference between objective claims (the statements we make from observations) and objective facts (the truth or reality of things), but speak as if objective facts can't be known.

So in the end discussion for 'objective' anything from an athiest amounts to nothing. Then I reject your rejection of the truth on the premise that we as people can't know any truth. Athiest on notice don't say anything in the bible is false becuase you can not know so.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 9:19:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/24/2015 9:02:40 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 9/24/2015 3:52:24 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Athiest use a tactic of throwing the word 'objective' around, as if it is some criteria of truth.

A tactic? You're insinuating a deceitful purpose and casting doubts on the sincerity of millions and millions of people. You're off to a highly questionable start.


Objective means uninfluenced by emotion.


Not the root meaning, but a serviceable definition.

The Athiest thinks 'objective' means empirical repeatable verfiable experimental results.


No.
What you describe is methodology, namely one associated with Methodological Naturalism, which is currently the premise all natural sciences start off from.

In everyday lives, only the maniac would be as strict. We use a very loose approximation of that method when dealing with everyday facts.


Here's the scenario:

The scenario deals with everyday facts. Not natural phenomena under scientific scrutiny.


A man is huddled in the corner of a room.

I state, proclaim, assert "That man is full of fear".

now the questions to expose the dishonest.

Is my statement objective?

Is the man being full of fear "real"?

Is my statement true or false?

The better question is this: does your statement reflect reality?

Not necessarily.
Man could be faking, he could be an actor, he could be a performance artist, or he might be trying to con you into something.

Many decades after Einstein enunciated general and special relativity, after quantum mechanics has asserted itself as a theory with staggering predictive power, we should be able to get this basic idea straight:

The appearance of things is not always the reality of things.

I have just demonstrated to you that your logic is flawed, as countless other reasons other than genuine fear could explain the man's body language.
You really need to go deeper on epistemology.

Alternati e hypothesis do not undermine the validity of mine. Becuase I am either right or wrong