Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

The Fundamentalist Knows Best

s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2015 2:44:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The fundamentalist takes an abstract idea and gives it a very limited meaning. He, or she, defines meaning in a very personal, partial manner and yet allows no room for disagreement.

Taking abstractions like spiritual concepts such as Heaven, God, and spirit and giving them set definitions is equivalent to taking abstractions like beautiful, sublime, and free and giving them limited meanings. For instance, saying something is beautiful is very subjective, thusly making the idea of Heaven as the most beautiful place a subjective idea. Secondly, to say God is the most sublime is, therefore, a subjective idea; saying that which is sublime for you is not necessarily equivalent to saying that which is sublime for me.

Thirdly, to define the spirit as being free from constraints, namely physical constraints, is to say it has neither place nor time. In other words, to define it, at all, is to give it restrictions; it's to take that which is boundless and place it in a box.

As finite beings, we cannot know spiritual matters in unlimited ways; we must create subjective meaning of that which is impartial.

However, the fundamentalist believes his, or her, subjective experiences of spiritual phenomena are somehow objective, and impartial, somehow true in an absolute, or universal, way; in other words, that which is most beautiful to the fundamentalist must be most beautiful to all, that which is most sublime must be most sublime for all, and that which he, or she, finds freeing must free all others.
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2015 5:14:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/19/2015 2:49:51 PM, JJ50 wrote:
Fundies should NEVER be taken seriously!

Except when they are armed.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2015 5:48:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/19/2015 2:44:51 PM, s-anthony wrote:
The fundamentalist takes an abstract idea and gives it a very limited meaning.
All theology reduces the complexities and ambiguities of the world to a single dogmatic story.

The fundamentalist says that he knows the whole story and that it's correct and good. But the theologist also says the story is correct and good -- only that he doesn't know it all yet. Neither ever submits the story's correctness to independent scrutiny, or its goodness to independent criticism.

Both are exercises in vanity, ignorance and contempt for one's fellow man. They're the same in category; only different in degree.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2015 7:58:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
All theology reduces the complexities and ambiguities of the world to a single dogmatic story.

Theology is the study of God, and dogma is based on one's beliefs.

Most people think of these concepts in terms of the fundamentals of religious tenets. However, theology and dogma can be very subjective and personal. One's ideas of God and spiritual beliefs can be very particular to him, or her. Not everyone is a fundamentalist; not everyone believes his, or her, ideas and beliefs are absolute, and universal.

It appears to me you are trying so hard to conflate religion with fundamentalism or objectivism, but the truth is it's not. Fundamentalism is, only, a subset of any religion; it's not the religion, itself. Not all religionists are fundamentalists or objectivists.

The fundamentalist says that he knows the whole story and that it's correct and good. But the theologist also says the story is correct and good -- only that he doesn't know it all yet. Neither ever submits the story's correctness to independent scrutiny, or its goodness to independent criticism.

Not all theologists are fundamentalists or objectivists.

Both are exercises in vanity, ignorance and contempt for one's fellow man. They're the same in category; only different in degree.

In your world, all religious thought is objective thought that demands proof. In other words, subjectivism doesn't exist.

Being religion or spirituality is subjective, it is absurd to demand something it can't provide.

You're not content with people having religious beliefs or spiritual experiences and admitting these are very personal and subjective; you want to denounce subjectivism, altogether, and say if it can't be demonstrated in a lab it doesn't exist. You're a fundamentalist who says if it's not true for me, then, it's not true for anyone.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2015 8:35:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/19/2015 7:58:21 PM, s-anthony wrote:
All theology reduces the complexities and ambiguities of the world to a single dogmatic story.
not everyone believes his, or her, ideas and beliefs are absolute, and universal.
You do though. You've created a subjective paradigm for ontology, epistemology and investigative methodology, given it absolute dominion over your mind, and declared it universally legitimate -- meaning that not only does it have absolute dominion over you, you'll never let anyone contest it, critique it, or hold it accountable, ever.

In your world, all religious thought is objective thought that demands proof. In other words, subjectivism doesn't exist.
I note that 'individualism' has now become 'subjectivism'.

But regardless, you surely mean: in the world of the imaginary Ruv you've created, since that's the only world you can discern.

You cannot know what happens in real Ruv-world, since that would mean challenging your subjective expectations, submitting them to the falsification of evidence, and making them accountable to others under objective validation criteria.

As it happens, your imaginary Ruv-world is quite different from real Ruv-world. But why should you care, since the ultimate object of subjectivism is ultimate self-satisfaction?

You're not content with people having religious beliefs or spiritual experiences and admitting these are very personal and subjective;
I'm very content with that. What I'm not happy with is giving them ontological legitimacy or epistemological value in public discourse without those claims being publicly accountable.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2015 12:16:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
not everyone believes his, or her, ideas and beliefs are absolute, and universal.

You do though. You've created a subjective paradigm for ontology, epistemology and investigative methodology, given it absolute dominion over your mind, and declared it universally legitimate -- meaning that not only does it have absolute dominion over you, you'll never let anyone contest it, critique it, or hold it accountable, ever.

If it is subjective, how is it universal?

If I never let anyone contest, critique, or hold accountable my beliefs, why are we debating? I don't object to your disagreeing with me; in fact, I rather enjoy it. That's, exactly, the reason I keep coming back to this forum.

That to which I object is your conclusion all thought is objective in nature and therefore must be empirically confirmed. You're an objectivist and a materialist; you don't believe subjective meaning exists; you believe if you can't experience it with the five senses it doesn't exist.

I note that 'individualism' has now become 'subjectivism'.

No. Subjectivism concerns the world of abstract thoughts and emotions, things that are not objective, things that cannot be proven using the scientific method.

But regardless, you surely mean: in the world of the imaginary Ruv you've created, since that's the only world you can discern.

You cannot know what happens in real Ruv-world, since that would mean challenging your subjective expectations, submitting them to the falsification of evidence, and making them accountable to others under objective validation criteria.

As it happens, your imaginary Ruv-world is quite different from real Ruv-world. But why should you care, since the ultimate object of subjectivism is ultimate self-satisfaction?

I'm not a subjectivist and neither am I an objectivist, but both. I believe in a world of abstractions and, also, a world of objects.

You don't. You believe all things, even abstractions, must be submitted to scientific methodologies. You can't separate the abstract from the concrete. You're a materialist who believes there is nothing beyond the physical. All so-called abstractions in your mind must have physical referents. That's perfectly alright with me. At least now, I know where it is you stand on things.

You're not content with people having religious beliefs or spiritual experiences and admitting these are very personal and subjective;

I'm very content with that. What I'm not happy with is giving them ontological legitimacy or epistemological value in public discourse without those claims being publicly accountable.

Are you saying love has no public legitimacy, that beauty is inappropriate beyond the private domain? I must agree they are very personal and are subjectively valued and legitimized but that in itself does not disqualify them from public discourse.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2015 1:43:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/20/2015 12:16:19 AM, s-anthony wrote:
not everyone believes his, or her, ideas and beliefs are absolute, and universal.
You do though. You've created a subjective paradigm for ontology, epistemology and investigative methodology, given it absolute dominion over your mind, and declared it universally legitimate -- meaning that not only does it have absolute dominion over you, you'll never let anyone contest it, critique it, or hold it accountable, ever.
If it is subjective, how is it universal?
You've pronounced a universal approach to ethics predicated on the idea that all subjectivity is ontologically, epistemologically and morally valid, and that nothing else is relevant to these domains.

But you've also insisted that this approach is legitimised by ethics.

Circular much?

Moreover, you also cannot say that nothing else exists, because that is not a subjective statement.

If you cannot say that nothing else exists, then you must acknowledge the prospect that if the objective can be established independently of any subjective domain, you may be systematically ignoring it, and there goes any claim to equal ontological, epistemological and moral equivalence, and hence the whole ethical edifice collapses too.

Not that it needed demolishing because it was already circular, and lacked diligence in the first place.

If I never let anyone contest, critique, or hold accountable my beliefs, why are we debating?
We're not. I'm making arguments. You're ignoring them to restate your position, and misrepresent mine.

I can't explain why you'd enjoy that, but toddlers enjoy being naughty and shocking too. :)

That to which I object is your conclusion all thought is objective in nature and therefore must be empirically confirmed. You're an objectivist and a materialist; you don't believe subjective meaning exists; you believe if you can't experience it with the five senses it doesn't exist.
I note that 'individualism' has now become 'subjectivism'.
No. Subjectivism concerns the world of abstract thoughts and emotions, things that are not objective, things that cannot be proven using the scientific method.

Nope -- objective ontologies include abstractions, so you haven't even defined subjectivity correctly.

'Individualism' (a non-existent ideal representing defiance of any idea you don't like), has now been replaced in your position statements by 'subjectivism' (an undefined ideal representing the legitimacy of defying anything you don't like.) Neither are really examinable since you haven't defined them, but I think both are likely to prove equally incoherent on examination.

But regardless, you surely mean: in the world of the imaginary Ruv you've created, since that's the only world you can discern.
You cannot know what happens in real Ruv-world, since that would mean challenging your subjective expectations, submitting them to the falsification of evidence, and making them accountable to others under objective validation criteria.
As it happens, your imaginary Ruv-world is quite different from real Ruv-world. But why should you care, since the ultimate object of subjectivism is ultimate self-satisfaction?
I'm not a subjectivist and neither am I an objectivist, but both.
Perhaps to the extent that you support unaccountability for your preferences and ideas, but accountability for any opinions or methods encroaching on yours?

Regardless, Anthony, your Ruv-world remains imaginary, and illustrates that as much as you privilege conjecture, you have difficulty distinguishing it from independent, verified fact.

You don't. You believe all things, even abstractions, must be submitted to scientific methodologies.
Hey gang! Let's meet Fantasy Ruv. Isn't he drawn simply!

You can't separate the abstract from the concrete.
Now watch as Fantasy Ruv meets a pretty lady called Whimsical Intuition!

You're a materialist who believes there is nothing beyond the physical.
They fall in love and have a subjective baby called Baby Poopoo!

Baby Poopoo is teething! He loves gnawing the corners of things, but can't actually chew them, because he doesn't have teeth yet!

Will he ever grow them? Who knows!

But he loves spitting things out too!

"Poo! Poo!" says Baby Poopoo.

All so-called abstractions in your mind must have physical referents.

Oh look, here's Doggy Conjecture! Look at Baby Poopoo trying to bite Doggy Conjecture's tail! Isn't he funny!

"Arf! Arf!" says Doggy Conjecture!

"Poo! Poo!" says Baby Poopoo.

That's perfectly alright with me. At least now, I know where it is you stand on things.
Everyone loves Fantasy Ruv -- he's convenient and funny! And isn't Baby Poopoo adorable!

You're not content with people having religious beliefs or spiritual experiences and admitting these are very personal and subjective;
I'm very content with that. What I'm not happy with is giving them ontological legitimacy or epistemological value in public discourse without those claims being publicly accountable.
Are you saying love has no public legitimacy, that beauty is inappropriate beyond the private domain?
Nope.

Now, why don't you ask Fantasy Ruv what I might've meant by that answer, so Baby Poopoo can gum it, and spit it out again? :D
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2015 3:06:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
You've pronounced a universal approach to ethics predicated on the idea that all subjectivity is ontologically, epistemologically and morally valid, and that nothing else is relevant to these domains.

No. Where did I say all subjectivity is morally valid? Saying something is morally valid to me is not saying it is morally valid to you. All subjectivity has validity, and all subjectivity has invalidity. That's the reason it's called subjectivity and not objectivity because its validity is not universal, or absolute.

Moreover, you also cannot say that nothing else exists, because that is not a subjective statement.

When did I say nothing else existed?

Nope -- objective ontologies include abstractions, so you haven't even defined subjectivity correctly.

Please name an objective abstraction.

'Individualism' (a non-existent ideal representing defiance of any idea you don't like), has now been replaced in your position statements by 'subjectivism' (an undefined ideal representing the lmemetaphysicfying anything you don't like.) Neither are really examinable since you haven't defined them, but I think both are likely to prove equally incoherent on examination.

You don't believe individuals exist?

subjectivism: The doctrine that reality is created or shaped by the mind.

Note: I'm not a subjectivists; so, I don't believe reality is exclusively created or shaped by the mind. I believe in both an objective and subjective world; so, for me, reality is the interactions of the objective world and the subjective mind.

I'm not a subjectivist and neither am I an objectivist, but both.

Perhaps to the extent that you support unaccountability for your preferences and ideas, but accountability for any opinions or methods encroaching on yours?

How can I be held accountable for opinions and methodologies that are not mine?

Regardless, Anthony, your Ruv-world remains imaginary, and illustrates that as much as you privilege conjecture, you have difficulty distinguishing it from independent, verified fact.

I have never once said conjecture was verifiable; in fact, I have said just the opposite. It is you who incessantly demands verification.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2015 3:39:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/20/2015 3:06:40 AM, s-anthony wrote:
You've pronounced a universal approach to ethics predicated on the idea that all subjectivity is ontologically, epistemologically and morally valid, and that nothing else is relevant to these domains.
Where did I say all subjectivity is morally valid?
If you did not hold subjective propositions morally valid within the subject's domain, then they would be morally contestable within that domain, and hence contestable by others.

For example, I could argue that you are bad or self-harming to uphold a belief, and you've already told me nobody's allowed to do that. So you're asserting the moral, epistemological and ontological validity of every subjective proposition within the subject's domain. That's what expressions like 'Good for me', 'True for me' or 'Real to me' mean.

Moreover, you also cannot say that nothing else exists, because that is not a subjective statement.
When did I say nothing else existed?
If the objective can co-exist in the subjective domain then anyone can use it to contest the moral, ontological or epistemological validity of anything in the subjective domain. So somehow, you must quarantine the objective from the subjective -- creating non-overlapping magisteria -- or else eliminate the objective entirely by saying that it doesn't exist -- it's all subjective.

However, you can't say it's all subjective, because that's not a subjective statement. So you're forced to accept an objective reality quarantined somehow (really by political fiat, since you have no better argument) from subjective experience.

But you can't even say it's quarantined, because that's an objective statement that potentially impinges on someone's subjective 'rights' (as you define them ontologically and ethically.) Really, all you can do is quarantine them 'for you'.

There's another word for that, Anthony: exceptionalism. Also known as special pleading.

Nope -- objective ontologies include abstractions, so you haven't even defined subjectivity correctly.
Please name an objective abstraction.
Happy to, once you define objectivity for me. If you can't, I'll define it for you, and then give you an illustration.

'Individualism' (a non-existent ideal representing defiance of any idea you don't like), has now been replaced in your position statements by 'subjectivism' (an undefined ideal representing the legitimacy of defying anything you don't like.) Neither are really examinable since you haven't defined them, but I think both are likely to prove equally incoherent on examination.
You don't believe individuals exist?
That doesn't follow from my statement, and you know it.

Another sign of your difficulty distinguishing subjective belief from verifiable fact is your difficulty discerning interpretation from straw-manning. See for example, your silly line confusing the undefined ideal of individualism with the ontological existence of the individual.

Perhaps to the extent that you support unaccountability for your preferences and ideas, but accountability for any opinions or methods encroaching on yours?
How can I be held accountable for opinions and methodologies that are not mine?
I assume you mean why, rather than how, since the how is easy.

One answer to why is: you may be ignorant, deluded or negligently self-interested. Knowledge and methodologies not yours may be more accurate, accountable, predictive, ethical -- and may be inconsistent with yours.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2015 4:06:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/20/2015 1:43:59 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/20/2015 12:16:19 AM, s-anthony wrote:
not everyone believes his, or her, ideas and beliefs are absolute, and universal.
You do though. You've created a subjective paradigm for ontology, epistemology and investigative methodology, given it absolute dominion over your mind, and declared it universally legitimate -- meaning that not only does it have absolute dominion over you, you'll never let anyone contest it, critique it, or hold it accountable, ever.
If it is subjective, how is it universal?
You've pronounced a universal approach to ethics predicated on the idea that all subjectivity is ontologically, epistemologically and morally valid, and that nothing else is relevant to these domains.

But you've also insisted that this approach is legitimised by ethics.

Circular much?

Moreover, you also cannot say that nothing else exists, because that is not a subjective statement.

If you cannot say that nothing else exists, then you must acknowledge the prospect that if the objective can be established independently of any subjective domain, you may be systematically ignoring it, and there goes any claim to equal ontological, epistemological and moral equivalence, and hence the whole ethical edifice collapses too.

Not that it needed demolishing because it was already circular, and lacked diligence in the first place.

If I never let anyone contest, critique, or hold accountable my beliefs, why are we debating?
We're not. I'm making arguments. You're ignoring them to restate your position, and misrepresent mine.

I can't explain why you'd enjoy that, but toddlers enjoy being naughty and shocking too. :)

That to which I object is your conclusion all thought is objective in nature and therefore must be empirically confirmed. You're an objectivist and a materialist; you don't believe subjective meaning exists; you believe if you can't experience it with the five senses it doesn't exist.
I note that 'individualism' has now become 'subjectivism'.
No. Subjectivism concerns the world of abstract thoughts and emotions, things that are not objective, things that cannot be proven using the scientific method.

Nope -- objective ontologies include abstractions, so you haven't even defined subjectivity correctly.

'Individualism' (a non-existent ideal representing defiance of any idea you don't like), has now been replaced in your position statements by 'subjectivism' (an undefined ideal representing the legitimacy of defying anything you don't like.) Neither are really examinable since you haven't defined them, but I think both are likely to prove equally incoherent on examination.

But regardless, you surely mean: in the world of the imaginary Ruv you've created, since that's the only world you can discern.
You cannot know what happens in real Ruv-world, since that would mean challenging your subjective expectations, submitting them to the falsification of evidence, and making them accountable to others under objective validation criteria.
As it happens, your imaginary Ruv-world is quite different from real Ruv-world. But why should you care, since the ultimate object of subjectivism is ultimate self-satisfaction?
I'm not a subjectivist and neither am I an objectivist, but both.
Perhaps to the extent that you support unaccountability for your preferences and ideas, but accountability for any opinions or methods encroaching on yours?

Regardless, Anthony, your Ruv-world remains imaginary, and illustrates that as much as you privilege conjecture, you have difficulty distinguishing it from independent, verified fact.

You don't. You believe all things, even abstractions, must be submitted to scientific methodologies.
Hey gang! Let's meet Fantasy Ruv. Isn't he drawn simply!

You can't separate the abstract from the concrete.
Now watch as Fantasy Ruv meets a pretty lady called Whimsical Intuition!

You're a materialist who believes there is nothing beyond the physical.
They fall in love and have a subjective baby called Baby Poopoo!

Baby Poopoo is teething! He loves gnawing the corners of things, but can't actually chew them, because he doesn't have teeth yet!

Will he ever grow them? Who knows!

But he loves spitting things out too!

"Poo! Poo!" says Baby Poopoo.

All so-called abstractions in your mind must have physical referents.

Oh look, here's Doggy Conjecture! Look at Baby Poopoo trying to bite Doggy Conjecture's tail! Isn't he funny!

"Arf! Arf!" says Doggy Conjecture!

"Poo! Poo!" says Baby Poopoo.

That's perfectly alright with me. At least now, I know where it is you stand on things.
Everyone loves Fantasy Ruv -- he's convenient and funny! And isn't Baby Poopoo adorable!

You're not content with people having religious beliefs or spiritual experiences and admitting these are very personal and subjective;
I'm very content with that. What I'm not happy with is giving them ontological legitimacy or epistemological value in public discourse without those claims being publicly accountable.
Are you saying love has no public legitimacy, that beauty is inappropriate beyond the private domain?
Nope.

Now, why don't you ask Fantasy Ruv what I might've meant by that answer, so Baby Poopoo can gum it, and spit it out again? :D

Ha! Oh boy I found this that too amusing. Ruv I don't think I've ever seen you get flustered before except during a few of your exchanges with Anthony (I'm not saying this is one of those times). Of all the other terrible users that you've interacted with why does he seem to spark your ire? Just curious.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2015 5:59:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/20/2015 4:06:37 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Now, why don't you ask Fantasy Ruv what I might've meant by that answer, so Baby Poopoo can gum it, and spit it out again? :D
Ha! Oh boy I found this that too amusing. Ruv I don't think I've ever seen you get flustered before except during a few of your exchanges with Anthony (I'm not saying this is one of those times). Of all the other terrible users that you've interacted with why does he seem to spark your ire? Just curious.

Fluster and ire? No to both, Ben. :)

Anthony's a member of good will and good standing, who's arguing what he believes to be true and good for no reason other than he genuinely thinks it true and good. We share similar concerns about fundamentalism, and probably share similar regard for secular pluralism. I can't imagine thinking of him other than with good will too. We're having a quite pleasant exchange over Religion and Art at the moment, which to the best of my knowledge, we're both enjoying even though we're of different views.

In Anthony's philosophy I recognise a well-motivated if careless attempt to reconcile religious diversity and secular pluralism. I think it's great that people of faith are trying to find such a path, and I'd be the first to say that the world would be a better place with more of that spirit and less religious supremacism, even if, in the end, I strongly disagree with Anthony's formulation of it.

Anthony thinks my vehemence is born either of rigid materialism or some form of zealous objectivism, and it's not. It's actually born of moral, ethical and philosophical concerns of which I realise Anthony isn't fully aware. But part of the reason I can't simply explain them to him is that he doesn't actually have (or I've yet to find) a coherent notion of ethics beyond a naive 'live and let live' ethic that renders all subjectivity equally legitimate, while giving no common sense of good or mutual obligation. Without that ethic, I think he'd simply ignore anything I said about the ethics of knowledge and opinion, so it's more productive to criticise his ideas until such time as he develops (if he does) the foundations to consider and evaluate alternatives.

But this connects to our exchanges too, Ben.

You've been agonising for months over how, without some absolute religious dogma, we can build a sustainable ethical frame at all. In some sense, the passive, relativist 'live and let live' frame Anthony has been advocating in recent posts is the codification of that nightmare: imagine the bastard love-child of George Orwell and Marshall Mcluhan, in which all meanings are negotiated by popularity, and hence justice is popular approval, there's no common standard for truth, public accountability, mutual responsibility, or or public responsibility, but as long as you fit a pleasant motive to any greedy, dishonest, corrupt, malignant or negligent action, plead individual expression whenever you encounter inconvenient public-interest strictures, and plead ignorance whenever any harm is attributed to you, you are never held responsible.

I've been telling you for months that I don't uphold that vision. So if anything, you should be glad that I'm chewing poor Anthony so badly, and I'd invite you to acknowledge that if nothing else, I'm walking the talk. :)

But I'd also invite you to reflect on this...

In Anthony's account I think you can see how putting trust in faith as a subjective apprehension can produce exactly the outcome you've been concerned about. So religious faith alone cannot be the answer. And if you think rigid, absolutist dogma is the answer (I emphatically don't, but you might), then what I'd invite you to ask yourself: why must it be religious, and whether it's religious or not, what happens when it's found to be ignorant, or in error, as dogma generally is?
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2015 11:48:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
If you did not hold subjective propositions morally valid within the subject's domain, then they would be morally contestable within that domain, and hence contestable by others.

For example, I could argue that you are bad or self-harming to uphold a belief, and you've already told me nobody's allowed to do that. So you're asserting the moral, epistemological and ontological validity of every subjective proposition within the subject's domain. That's what expressions like 'Good for me', 'True for me' or 'Real to me' mean.

I've never said you're not allowed to contest anything in which you don't agree. In fact, I've repeatedly said just the opposite. It's subjectivity that allows for disagreements. If everything were universal, and absolutely, true, there would be no disagreements; but, that's not reality.

I have no issues with objectivity; of course, there are things on which we agree. I have an issue with saying everything is objective, and subjectivity doesn't exist. If you did not see things differently than I do, we wouldn't be having this debate. The fact is this debate forum exists for precisely that reason: we do not all see things in, exactly, the same way.

If the objective can co-exist in the subjective domain then anyone can use it to contest the moral, ontological or epistemological validity of anything in the subjective domain. So somehow, you must quarantine the objective from the subjective -- creating non-overlapping magisteria -- or else eliminate the objective entirely by saying that it doesn't exist -- it's all subjective.

If it were all subjective, there would be no agreement on anything. Subjectivity is partial; it is relative to the individual; it divides and separates us.

Objectivity is absolute; it makes provision for things on which we can agree; it holds us together as a collective. We are not isolated or entirely individuals; we are also a collective.

However, you can't say it's all subjective, because that's not a subjective statement. So you're forced to accept an objective reality quarantined somehow (really by political fiat, since you have no better argument) from subjective experience.

I never said it's all subjective.

But you can't even say it's quarantined, because that's an objective statement that potentially impinges on someone's subjective 'rights' (as you define them ontologically and ethically.) Really, all you can do is quarantine them 'for you'.

There's another word for that, Anthony: exceptionalism. Also known as special pleading.

I never said objectivity did not exist. I have repeatedly said we live in a world of objects and a world of abstractions, a world of the physical and a world of the spirit.

It's you who have so ardently denied that. You want to claim unadulterated objectivism and denounce anyone who doesn't agree with you as a heretic. You are, clearly, a fundamentalist who seeks authority.

However, the hypocrisy in this is the assumption of objectivity in the face of disagreement. If your beliefs were objective, then, why are they partial to you? Why do not all others see things exactly as you do?

Please name an objective abstraction.

Happy to, once you define objectivity for me. If you can't, I'll define it for you, and then give you an illustration.

objectivity: The state of being objective, just, unbiased and not influenced by emotions or personal prejudices
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2015 3:55:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/20/2015 11:48:27 AM, s-anthony wrote:
Please name an objective abstraction.
Happy to, once you define objectivity for me.
objectivity: The state of being objective, just, unbiased and not influenced by emotions or personal prejudices
Thank you. That's a good start. I'll need an extra couple of steps before we can talk about abstracts.

How does that definition reconcile with:
It's subjectivity that allows for disagreements. If everything were universal, and absolutely true, there would be no disagreements; but that's not reality.
Why is it only subjectivity that allows for disagreements? In a world of imprecision, partial knowledge and changing states, doesn't objectivity allow for disagreements too? (A)

To save posts, I'll assume you'll agree that objectivity allows for disagreement, but I've bookmarked that assumption (A) for reference. To spell it out further, we can make conjectures that while free from prejudice, bias or emotion, are nevertheless inaccurate or wrong, and those conjectures will be objective

So next question: since objectivity allows for disagreement, it allows for incorrect conjecture. This means, I hope you'll agree, that objective conjecture can be based on inaccuracy, imprecision, partial ignorance. An objective conjecture can be wrong or partly wrong, it's just that why it's wrong should not be based on bias, emotion or prejudice.

That being so, if objectivity is the absence of emotion, bias and prejudice, but objectivity cannot be detected by correctness alone, how are emotion, bias and prejudice to be detected?

This matters, since if we don't have a procedure that we both trust, we cannot pronounce on whether any thought is objective. And so any abstraction I offer you as objective will depend on the procedure we agree upon. Moreover, since any bias, prejudice or emotion destroys objectivity, our procedure cannot be lazy, sloppy or vague. It must be the best, most rigorous and diligent procedure we can agree upon, and if we can ever find some way to improve it, we're obliged to use it. Let's call that 'Best Practice'. (B)

Do you agree that if we have a best practice procedure for eliminating prejudice, bias, and emotion, and I offer a coherent conjecture, accountable to everything we objectively observe, that conjecture cam fairly said to be as objective as we can presently produce?

If so, since abstractions can be conjectured or inferred from concrete examples, is there any reason in principle that an abstraction cannot be produced objectively?

That being so -- and allowing for a best practice procedure we've yet to stipulate for eliminating emotion, prejudice, and bias from our analysis, as objective abstractions I want to offer:

* love -- recognised objectively as an abstraction of sympathetic behaviours and reported feelings of affection, and qualified statistically through likelihood and intensity of observed behaviours and reported feelings; and
* beauty -- recognised objectively as an abstraction of properties evoking aesthetic delight in the observer, and qualified statistically through the likelihood and intensity of those reactions.

So what I'm saying is that while love and beauty can be experienced subjectively, they can also be observed objectively. They're objective abstracts as long as we use best-practice procedures to eliminate bias, prejudice and emotion from the observation (not from the phenomenon being observed.)

I realise I've given you a bit to chew on there, but let me conclude the thought...

Love and aesthetic delight are often responses to the concrete, but the object being loved or evoking aesthetic delight may not exist at all. Objectivity does not require that an idea exist concretely, and does not preclude that it may be imagined or apprehended, only that we can impartially recognise when it is being considered, and observe response to its consideration. (C)

That being so, whether they are real or not, is there any reason that faith or God cannot be discussed objectively -- not as an individual apprehension, but as an abstraction of ideas and behaviours objectively observed?
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2015 9:54:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Why is it only subjectivity that allows for disagreements? In a world of imprecision, partial knowledge and changing states, doesn't objectivity allow for disagreements too? (A)

Objectivity is based on the physical world, the world of objects. For instance, "It will rain, tomorrow," is an objective statement; it can be proven false. With objective statements, there is either verity or falsity.

In saying objectivity does not allow for disagreements, I'm in no way saying there are no disagreements on objective statements; for instance, I can say, "It will rain, tomorrow," and you can say, "It won't," however only one of us may be right.

On the other hand, subjectivity deals with abstract feelings and thoughts, such as beauty. We may disagree on that which is beautiful, and neither one of us is right nor wrong. Saying, "My spouse is beautiful," is not a falsifiable statement. The truth of that statement can only be known by me. I may think she's beautiful while you may not. If I say she's beautiful and I'm being sincere, then, the statement is true for me. If you in sincerity say she's ugly, then, that statement is true for you.

That being so, if objectivity is the absence of emotion, bias and prejudice, but objectivity cannot be detected by correctness alone, how are emotion, bias and prejudice to be detected?

(1 + 1 = 2) is that an emotional, bias, or prejudice statement?

This matters, since if we don't have a procedure that we both trust, we cannot pronounce on whether any thought is objective.

I have no problem with the scientific method verifying objective statements. The problem I have is with your insistence on using it to verify abstractions.

And so any abstraction I offer you as objective will depend on the procedure we agree upon.

No. It won't; because, abstractions are not objective. You have a real problem with separating abstract thoughts and feelings from concrete objects. For, in your mind, there are no abstractions only concrete objects, neither is there subjectivity only that which is objective.

Do you agree that if we have a best practice procedure for eliminating prejudice, bias, and emotion, and I offer a coherent conjecture, accountable to everything we objectively observe, that conjecture cam fairly said to be as objective as we can presently produce?

Yes.

If so, since abstractions can be conjectured or inferred from concrete examples, is there any reason in principle that an abstraction cannot be produced objectively?

Yes. Because, abstractions do not come from that which is concrete. In order for them to do so, they must have physical referents; and, by definition, they don't.

* love -- recognised objectively as an abstraction of sympathetic behaviours and reported feelings of affection, and qualified statistically through likelihood and intensity of observed behaviours and reported feelings; and

There is no way of proving, objectively, any behaviour corresponds with any emotion, statistically or otherwise. If that were the case, the term hypocrisy, or insincerity, would not make sense. A person can just as well pretend to love someone as he, or she, can actually love someone.

* beauty -- recognised objectively as an abstraction of properties evoking aesthetic delight in the observer, and qualified statistically through the likelihood and intensity of those reactions.

Beauty is subjective. Any reactions a person has that may be seen as evoking aesthetic delight cannot statistically or otherwise prove he, or she, finds the object of observation beautiful; because, the reactions are subject to interpretation; and, we have no way of knowing if the reactions are sincere.

So what I'm saying is that while love and beauty can be experienced subjectively, they can also be observed objectively.

Sorry, but in observing a person's response to any stimulus, we are not at all observing a person's affective state. The observation is subject to our interpretation, and the response may not sincerely correspond to the emotion in which we think it does.

Love and aesthetic delight are often responses to the concrete, but the object being loved or evoking aesthetic delight may not exist at all. Objectivity does not require that an idea exist concretely, and does not preclude that it may be imagined or apprehended, only that we can impartially recognise when it is being considered, and observe response to its consideration. (C)

How could you impartially recognise something for consideration if it were partial, or relative, to your imagination?

An objective statement is a falsifiable statement. How in God's name could anyone prove, or disprove, anything that is distinct to your imagination?

That being so, whether they are real or not, is there any reason that faith or God cannot be discussed objectively -- not as an individual apprehension, but as an abstraction of ideas and behaviours objectively observed

Yes. For the simple reasons they're not objective concepts and cannot be objectively observed.
Hitchian
Posts: 764
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2015 9:59:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/21/2015 9:54:31 AM, s-anthony wrote:
Why is it only subjectivity that allows for disagreements? In a world of imprecision, partial knowledge and changing states, doesn't objectivity allow for disagreements too? (A)

Objectivity is based on the physical world, the world of objects. For instance, "It will rain, tomorrow," is an objective statement; it can be proven false. With objective statements, there is either verity or falsity.

In saying objectivity does not allow for disagreements, I'm in no way saying there are no disagreements on objective statements; for instance, I can say, "It will rain, tomorrow," and you can say, "It won't," however only one of us may be right.

On the other hand, subjectivity deals with abstract feelings and thoughts, such as beauty. We may disagree on that which is beautiful, and neither one of us is right nor wrong. Saying, "My spouse is beautiful," is not a falsifiable statement. The truth of that statement can only be known by me. I may think she's beautiful while you may not. If I say she's beautiful and I'm being sincere, then, the statement is true for me. If you in sincerity say she's ugly, then, that statement is true for you.

That being so, if objectivity is the absence of emotion, bias and prejudice, but objectivity cannot be detected by correctness alone, how are emotion, bias and prejudice to be detected?

(1 + 1 = 2) is that an emotional, bias, or prejudice statement?

This matters, since if we don't have a procedure that we both trust, we cannot pronounce on whether any thought is objective.

I have no problem with the scientific method verifying objective statements. The problem I have is with your insistence on using it to verify abstractions.

And so any abstraction I offer you as objective will depend on the procedure we agree upon.

No. It won't; because, abstractions are not objective. You have a real problem with separating abstract thoughts and feelings from concrete objects. For, in your mind, there are no abstractions only concrete objects, neither is there subjectivity only that which is objective.

Do you agree that if we have a best practice procedure for eliminating prejudice, bias, and emotion, and I offer a coherent conjecture, accountable to everything we objectively observe, that conjecture cam fairly said to be as objective as we can presently produce?

Yes.

If so, since abstractions can be conjectured or inferred from concrete examples, is there any reason in principle that an abstraction cannot be produced objectively?

Yes. Because, abstractions do not come from that which is concrete. In order for them to do so, they must have physical referents; and, by definition, they don't.


* love -- recognised objectively as an abstraction of sympathetic behaviours and reported feelings of affection, and qualified statistically through likelihood and intensity of observed behaviours and reported feelings; and

There is no way of proving, objectively, any behaviour corresponds with any emotion, statistically or otherwise. If that were the case, the term hypocrisy, or insincerity, would not make sense. A person can just as well pretend to love someone as he, or she, can actually love someone.

* beauty -- recognised objectively as an abstraction of properties evoking aesthetic delight in the observer, and qualified statistically through the likelihood and intensity of those reactions.

Beauty is subjective. Any reactions a person has that may be seen as evoking aesthetic delight cannot statistically or otherwise prove he, or she, finds the object of observation beautiful; because, the reactions are subject to interpretation; and, we have no way of knowing if the reactions are sincere.

So what I'm saying is that while love and beauty can be experienced subjectively, they can also be observed objectively.

Sorry, but in observing a person's response to any stimulus, we are not at all observing a person's affective state. The observation is subject to our interpretation, and the response may not sincerely correspond to the emotion in which we think it does.

Love and aesthetic delight are often responses to the concrete, but the object being loved or evoking aesthetic delight may not exist at all. Objectivity does not require that an idea exist concretely, and does not preclude that it may be imagined or apprehended, only that we can impartially recognise when it is being considered, and observe response to its consideration. (C)

How could you impartially recognise something for consideration if it were partial, or relative, to your imagination?

An objective statement is a falsifiable statement. How in God's name could anyone prove, or disprove, anything that is distinct to your imagination?

That being so, whether they are real or not, is there any reason that faith or God cannot be discussed objectively -- not as an individual apprehension, but as an abstraction of ideas and behaviours objectively observed

Yes. For the simple reasons they're not objective concepts and cannot be objectively observed.

Not to derail the topic, just to point out that the nature of art and beauty is on debate, with one philosophical camp forwarding the thesis that they're not subjective. I just didn't want to let that slide by and have the impression that that common-sensical view hang as though it's universally accepted.

Because it's not.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2015 11:56:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/21/2015 9:54:31 AM, s-anthony wrote:
Why is it only subjectivity that allows for disagreements? In a world of imprecision, partial knowledge and changing states, doesn't objectivity allow for disagreements too?
Objectivity is based on the physical world, the world of objects. For instance, "It will rain, tomorrow," is an objective statement; it can be proven false. With objective statements, there is either verity or falsity.
Not necessarily. There may be no reliable decision procedure to verify, validate, invalidate or falsify an objective conjecture. For example, was there ever an archer in mediaeval Sherwood Forest calling himself Robin Hood? The question is entirely about the physical properties of objects, so it is objective, yet if there are no records of the archers in Sherwood forest, there is no decision procedure to answer that question.

In saying objectivity does not allow for disagreements, I'm in no way saying there are no disagreements on objective statements
Yes. I think you meant to say that in conflicting subjective statements there may be no way to resolve them. However, as I just illustrated, there may be no way to resolve an objective question, or validate an objective conjecture either.

I may think she's beautiful while you may not. If I say she's beautiful and I'm being sincere, then, the statement is true for me.
How do you know whether you're being sincere? How reliable is that knowledge? Do people ever lie to themselves?

Isn't that a completely different meaning for 'truth'?

That being so, if objectivity is the absence of emotion, bias and prejudice, but objectivity cannot be detected by correctness alone, how are emotion, bias and prejudice to be detected?
(1 + 1 = 2) is that an emotional, bias, or prejudice statement?
That doesn't answer my question. What's a suitable procedure for detecting or preventing emotion, bias or prejudice?

This matters, since if we don't have a procedure that we both trust, we cannot pronounce on whether any thought is objective.
I have no problem with the scientific method verifying objective statements. The problem I have is with your insistence on using it to verify abstractions.
Is 'animal' concrete, or abstract? What colour is animal? What sound does animal make? If animal is a concrete object, then what is its nearest GPS location?

We can't specify, because a class of specifics is an abstraction.

Likewise, processes and forces are abstractions. Does evolution have a GPS location? Does gravity?

Objective techniques work with abstractions all the time, Anthony. They can tell whether a living individual is an animal, how fast evolution occurs, how strong is gravity.

And so any abstraction I offer you as objective will depend on the procedure we agree upon.
No. It won't; because, abstractions are not objective.
Please explain why 'animal', 'evolution' or 'gravity' are not abstract terms.

Do you agree that if we have a best practice procedure for eliminating prejudice, bias, and emotion, and I offer a coherent conjecture, accountable to everything we objectively observe, that conjecture cam fairly said to be as objective as we can presently produce?
Yes.
Okay, good.

If so, since abstractions can be conjectured or inferred from concrete examples, is there any reason in principle that an abstraction cannot be produced objectively?
Yes. Because, abstractions do not come from that which is concrete.
They certainly can. Shortly I'll show you that subjective experiences -- including emotions and memories -- can have physical referents too.

* love -- recognised objectively as an abstraction of sympathetic behaviours and reported feelings of affection, and qualified statistically through likelihood and intensity of observed behaviours and reported feelings; and
There is no way of proving, objectively, any behaviour corresponds with any emotion,
You're appealing to ignorance, Anthony (in this case, your own.) If you don't know how to do it, you think it can't be done.

But scientists have been measuring emotional responses in multiple ways for many decades. Scientists can ask hypotheticals and get subjects to self-measure (e.g, Rubin's love/like scale [http://psychcentral.com...]); they can measure physiological and behavioural responses (e.g. arousal in autistic children [cogrowlab.com/projects/measuring-arousal-during-therapy-for-children-with-autism-and-adhd/]); they can also measure emotion based on brain activity (e.g. [http://www.theverge.com...].)

Finally, and quite amazingly, neurology is beginning to image your own private memories, based only on fMRI data (e.g. reconstructing faces you've seen [http://news.yale.edu...])

What does this illustrate?

It illustrates that your subjective world, Anthony, is a product of objective functions; it follows patterns laid out by neurology and psychology; and itself creates objective changes.

So your subjective experience is studyable objectively.

Such study is imprecise, of course, but objective study always is. And it improves over time.

So what I'm saying is that while love and beauty can be experienced subjectively, they can also be observed objectively.
Sorry, but in observing a person's response to any stimulus, we are not at all observing a person's affective state.
There are certainly techniques for measuring affective state. If you're saying they're not measuring affective state, then are you saying they're totally failing to predict affect? If so, what's your evidence? Or if not, how can you confirm that they're not measuring affective state?

Love and aesthetic delight are often responses to the concrete, but the object being loved or evoking aesthetic delight may not exist at all.
How could you impartially recognise something for consideration if it were partial, or relative, to your imagination?
One way is by using language. Language references the subjective as well as the objective, so using language can invoke subjective ideas as well as objective ones. This is how psychotherapy works, for example.

An objective statement is a falsifiable statement.
No, I covered that above.

How could anyone prove, or disprove, anything that is distinct to your imagination?
I didn't understand the sense of this question, but so far I think your problem is twofold: a misunderstanding of objective and abstract, and a gross under-estimation of how much subjective experience can be studied objectively.

I said it some time back, Anthony: claiming that the subjective and objective are separate is not itself a subjective statement; it's an objective one. So if you can't prove it, it's a conjecture.

And as it happens, the conjecture is also demonstrably false. The subjective can be induced by, act as, and be reflected, recorded and measured by, objective processes. Memories can be reconstructed objectively; emotions can be induced and studied objectively; and even subjective convictions can be induced and/or studied objectively.

The subjective is not a distinct magisterium, Anthony. At least part of it (and realistically, likely all of it) is a province of the objective.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2015 7:24:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Objectivity is based on the physical world, the world of objects. For instance, "It will rain, tomorrow," is an objective statement; it can be proven false. With objective statements, there is either verity or falsity.

Not necessarily. There may be no reliable decision procedure to verify, validate, invalidate or falsify an objective conjecture. For example, was there ever an archer in mediaeval Sherwood Forest calling himself Robin Hood? The question is entirely about the physical properties of objects, so it is objective, yet if there are no records of the archers in Sherwood forest, there is no decision procedure to answer that question.

Whether or not sufficient evidence is presented to validate an objective claim is immaterial. Validation only goes to a claim's truthfulness, not to its being objective or subjective. If that weren't the case, there would be no objective claims; for all objective claims need validation.

Yes. I think you meant to say that in conflicting subjective statemobjectiobjec no way to resolve them. However, as I just illustrated, there may be no way to resolve an objective question, or validate an objective conjecture either.

Correct.

However, that doesn't change the fact it's an objective question, not a question of something's objectivity.

I may think she's beautiful while you may not. If I say she's beautiful and I'm being sincere, then, the statement is true for me.

How do you know whether you're being sincere? How reliable is that knowledge? Do people ever lie to themselves?

Isn't that a completely different meaning for 'truth'?

Whether or not I'm delusional is immaterial. Subjective truth is not falsifiable, meaning someone other than me has no way of knowing whether I truly find my wife beautiful or not.

That doesn't answer my question. What's a suitable procedure for detecting or preventing emotion, bias or prejudice?

As long as there are finite minds involved, there will be emotion, bias, and prejudice. In saying we can know that which is objective, I'm saying of course in part. The concrete world has been slanted by our perspectives; we see a fragmented whole, a world of successive events out of which is static, and unchanging. To every truth is its falsehood; we see things in contradiction, and conflict, things in which there is no division. From every thesis and its antithesis come a new thesis; to every equation, there are two sides.

Is 'animal' concrete, or abstract? What colour is animal? What sound does animal make? If animal is a concrete object, then what is its nearest GPS location?

Animals have physical referents. I can point to an animal and say, "That's an animal." So, yes. The term animal is a concrete term.

We can't specify, because a class of specifics is an abstraction.

To distinguish one concrete object from another is to specify; an animal is distinguishable from a rock or a tree; we know an animal is not a car or a boat. Using your logic, there would be no concrete objects. A dog is defined by a class of specifics. Is a dog, too, an abstraction? What color is a dog? Where is its nearest location?

Likewise, processes and forces are abstractions. Does evolution have a GPS location? Does gravity?

Gravity, as a physical force, is a concrete noun; it can be measured using scientific instruments.

Evolution is not; it is an abstraction; it is not an actual physical object but a process, just as swimming or cooking are not physical objects but processes. The physical objects are the material things involved in the processes, not the processes, themselves.

Objective techniques work with abstractions all the time, Anthony. They can tell whether a living individual is an animal, how fast evolution occurs, how strong is gravity.

Techniques are also processes, and processes are abstractions. Models which describe techniques are objects, but the actual processes are abstractions.

Abstractions can subjectively interpret concrete objects. Processes are limited by the originators of those processes. No process that involves sentience is beyond the limitations of the mind that created that process. You may have scientific techniques that measure, and quantify, any phenomenon, but revised models describing more advanced techniques are common in any field of study. If models were failsafe, they wouldn't need revisions.

Please explain why 'animal', 'evolution' or 'gravity' are not abstract terms.

Animal is a concrete noun; because, it has a physical referent; you can point to an animal in space and time.

Evolution is an abstract noun; it is not a physical object but a process.

Gravity is a physical force that can be measured using scientific instruments.

But scientists have been measuring emotional responses in multiple ways for many decades. Scientists can ask hypotheticals and get subjects to self-measure (e.g, Rubin's love/like scale [http://psychcentral.com......]); they can measure physiological and behavioural responses (e.g. arousal in autistic children [cogrowlab.com/projects/measuring-arousal-during-therapy-for-children-with-autism-and-adhd/]); they can also measure emotion based on brain activity (e.g. [http://www.theverge.com......].)

Like ideas, emotions must be interpreted in a broader framework. The stimulation of nerve cells does not explain the mind's ability to interpret affect. For instance, anger as, merely, a physiological response to stimuli does not in itself define it; it must be viewed in context with other contrasting emotions; in other words, it must be subject to interpretation. Interpretation, by definition, is subjective. Having conflicting, or contrasting, emotions, or neural stimulations defined as emotions, does not explain the mechanism of interpretation. Interpretation needs something that has the capacity to transcend the emotions, themselves, and view them in context. In other words, sentience must transcend neurological stimulations to interpret and create contextual, or subjective, meaning. The mind must have the capacity for reflection, or to look back on itself.

There are certainly techniques for measuring affective state. If you're saying they're not measuring affective state, then are you saying they're totally failing to predict affect? If so, what's your evidence? Or if not, how can you confirm that they're not measuring affective state?

To measure is to quantify, and to quantify is to divide, or set apart, to make partial, or incomplete. The very act of measuring is abstract, and subjective.

Secondly, to measure affective state is to interpret that which is already abstract.

Thirdly, for me, neurological imaging is not at all measuring affective state but neurological stimulations. To measure affective state is to measure one's interpretations of neurological images; so, measuring affective state is twice removed from the object.

I said it some time back, Anthony: claiming that the subjective and objective are separate is not itself a subjective statement; it's an objective one. So if you can't prove it, it's a conjecture.

If it's objective, then, how is it conjecture?

And as it happens, the conjecture is also demonstrably false. The subjective can be induced by, act as, and be reflected, recorded and measured by, objective processes. Memories can be reconstructed objectively; emotions can be induced and studied objectively; and even subjective convictions can be induced and/or studied objectively.

How can that which is subjective be studied objectively? If something is subjective, it is partial, or relative to observation; it is not absolute, or complete. If something is objective, it is impartial, or absolute, not relative to observation. Saying that which subjective can be studied objectively is like saying that which is in part can be studie
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2015 3:48:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/23/2015 7:24:58 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Objectivity is based on the physical world, the world of objects. For instance, "It will rain, tomorrow," is an objective statement; it can be proven false. With objective statements, there is either verity or falsity.
Not necessarily. There may be no reliable decision procedure to verify, validate, invalidate or falsify an objective conjecture. For example, was there ever an archer in mediaeval Sherwood Forest calling himself Robin Hood?
Whether or not sufficient evidence is presented to validate an objective claim is immaterial.
It's more complex than that, Anthony. A claim is built out of an ontology (i.e. what is understood to exist, and how it connects to other things and is classified), and an epistemology (i.e. a way of validating the truth or falsity of propositions.)

For a claim to be objective, we need the ontology supporting the claim to be objective; for a claim to be known to have an objective truth value, we need an objective epistemology to validate or invalidate the claim.

The same is true for questions. This means that if the ontology isn't objective, then the question isn't objective; and if an objective epistemology doesn't cover the question, then there's no certainty of an objective answer.

It simply isn't true that all questions about the physical properties of objective objects are objective questions.

How do you know whether you're being sincere? How reliable is that knowledge? Do people ever lie to themselves?
Isn't that a completely different meaning for 'truth'?
Whether or not I'm delusional is immaterial. Subjective truth is not falsifiable
Some subjective beliefs can be falsified objectively.

That doesn't answer my question. What's a suitable procedure for detecting or preventing emotion, bias or prejudice?
As long as there are finite minds involved, there will be emotion, bias, and prejudice.
Why are you evading? If you don't know, why not say you don't know?

Evolution is [...] is not an actual physical object but a process.
That's my point. It's a process, yet it's not subjective. It has mechanisms, which can be observed, products which can be confirmed; it produces predictions which can be validated. It's objective.

But scientists have been measuring emotional responses in multiple ways for many decades.
Like ideas, emotions must be interpreted in a broader framework. The stimulation of nerve cells does not explain the mind's ability to interpret affect.
Scientific reference, please?

To measure is to quantify, and to quantify is to divide, or set apart, to make partial, or incomplete. The very act of measuring is abstract, and subjective.
Scientific reference, please?

I said it some time back, Anthony: claiming that the subjective and objective are separate is not itself a subjective statement; it's an objective one. So if you can't prove it, it's a conjecture.
If it's objective, then, how is it conjecture?
A question can be about an objective matter; a proposed answer can be conjecture.
Your definition of objective is scientifically incorrect. You've misunderstood the objective, and this has led you to overstate the status of the subjective.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2015 1:31:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Whether or not sufficient evidence is presented to validate an objective claim is immaterial.

The same is true for questions. This means that if the ontology isn't objective, then the question isn't objective; and if an objective epistemology doesn't cover the question, then there's no certainty of an objective answer.

I agree. If we're not speaking of an objective claim, then, there is no objective answer.

However, this does not respond to my concern. My concern is not for evidence but for the nature of the claim. Saying something is not objective because it's wrong is saying all objective statements are true, and if all objective statements are true, then, it makes no sense to say they are falsifiable.

It simply isn't true that all questions about the physical properties of objective objects are objective questions.

How do you inquire for the subjective from that which is objective?

Some subjective beliefs can be falsified objectively.

So, in other words, some partial beliefs can be known as though they were absolute? We can imagine to know things objectively, or impartially, and, of course, we do. For this reason, there is so much contradiction, conflict, and disagreement, a very black and white world among fundamentalists of all stripes.

That doesn't answer my question. What's a suitable procedure for detecting or preventing emotion, bias or prejudice?

As long as there are finite minds involved, there will be emotion, bias, and prejudice.

Why are you evading? If you don't know, why not say you don't know?

I'm not evading you. That's your answer: there's not.

We as a group can come to an agreement and as a group imagine our understanding to be more complete. However, even groups have emotions, biases, and prejudices. It's in agreement we entertain a sense of objectivity. A paradigm is never seen as being bias while being in the midst of one. It is not until we are on the outside do we realize its parameters.

Evolution is [...] is not an actual physical object but a process.

That's my point. It's a process, yet it's not subjective. It has mechanisms, which can be observed, products which can be confirmed; it produces predictions which can be validated. It's objective.

A process cannot be observed; the things in observation are the physiological changes. In other words, we are not observing the process, itself, at least not objectively, but the consequences of the process. Actions are things in motion; according to Einstein's theory of relativity, motion is relative to observation; but, according to you, it's not; it's objective; it's absolute.

A question can be about an objective matter; a proposed answer can be conjecture.
Your definition of objective is scientifically incorrect. You've misunderstood the objective, and this has led you to overstate the status of the subjective.

If the question is objective, how can conjecture answer it?

My definition of objective was taken from Wiktionary.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2015 5:38:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/24/2015 1:31:55 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Whether or not sufficient evidence is presented to validate an objective claim is immaterial.
The same is true for questions. This means that if the ontology isn't objective, then the question isn't objective; and if an objective epistemology doesn't cover the question, then there's no certainty of an objective answer.
I agree. If we're not speaking of an objective claim, then, there is no objective answer.
No, I said that if the question isn't cast into an objective frame there's no certainty of an objective answer.

But clearly sometimes, there is an objective response to a subjective position. You could be subjectively convinced you knew who ate the last slice of cake, yet a video camera could prove you wrong -- or right.

However, this does not respond to my concern. My concern is not for evidence but for the nature of the claim. Saying something is not objective because it's wrong is saying all objective statements are true
In two successive paragraphs you've misstated two positions. Are you struggling to understand the argument, or embarking an a deliberate course of systematic dishonesty?

Recall that it was you who wrote that:
With objective statements, there is either verity or falsity.

And I argued.
There may be no reliable decision procedure to verify, validate, invalidate or falsify an objective conjecture.

So nobody is arguing that all objective statements are true.

It simply isn't true that all questions about the physical properties of objective objects are objective questions.
How do you inquire for the subjective from that which is objective?
Objectivity is the systematic removal of prejudice, bias, and emotion from the study of the domain of discourse. That means it has to be removed from the ontology (i.e. language and classifications), the epistemology (validation, verification, evaluation) and the methodology (standards, procedures, tools, techniques, training.)

Informally, in the sciences, subjectivity is treated as a potential source of imprecision and inaccuracy. The sciences seek to build a best practice body of knowledge that identifies sources of imprecision and reduces them but also measures them to estimate the inaccuracy in the models. The way best practice works is that there is mutual obligation to use the best methods -- if someone else can see a better way to eliminate subjectivity or any other kind imprecision, then you have to adopt those methods, and where you've failed to remove a source of known imprecision, that has to be declared (and when you fail to eliminate all known sources of subjectivity, that can invalidate a scientific result.)

This means that there can still be inaccuracy or imprecision, but that as knowledge of the sources of inaccuracy and imprecision grow, their scope and impact shrink.

Some subjective beliefs can be falsified objectively.
So, in other words, some partial beliefs can be known as though they were absolute?
A subjective perspective isn't necessarily a partial belief. It's a belief informed by prejudice, bias and emotion. Characteristically, subjective views tend to overstate knowledge, expertise, fairness, precision and accuracy. And it's often easy to falsify subjective beliefs simply by gathering data extensively, systematically and independently, and isolating observer-effects from the observations using techniques developed over time to do exactly that.

We as a group can come to an agreement and as a group imagine our understanding to be more complete. However, even groups have emotions, biases, and prejudices.
This is an argument of false equivalence. You're arguing that being systematically diligent, transparent and accountable is no better than being self-interestedly negligent, opaque and unacountable

Evolution is [...] is not an actual physical object but a process.
That's my point. It's a process, yet it's not subjective. It has mechanisms, which can be observed, products which can be confirmed; it produces predictions which can be validated. It's objective.
We are not observing the process, itself, at least not objectively, but the consequences of the process.
We can observe both products and mechanisms of a process.

according to you, it's not; it's objective; it's absolute.
That's your third misrepresentation in one post. I've never said that the objective is absolute. I've described objectivity as an approach that entails transparency, accountability and independence. The conflation of objectivity with absolutes is yours.

A question can be about an objective matter; a proposed answer can be conjecture.
Your definition of objective is scientifically incorrect. You've misunderstood the objective, and this has led you to overstate the status of the subjective.
If the question is objective, how can conjecture answer it?
Through falsification. An hypothesis is simply an objective conjecture that can be falsified experimentally. Science develops predictive models by exhaustively eliminating incorrect hypotheses.

My definition of objective was taken from Wiktionary.
Were your misrepresentations, conflations and bare assertions taken from Wiktionary too?
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2015 12:32:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
But clearly sometimes, there is an objective response to a subjective position. You could be subjectively convinced you knew who ate the last slice of cake, yet a video camera could prove you wrong -- or right.

I see, now, that which you were saying. In that regard, I agree.

I guess I was using subjective to mean abstract, as in not concrete or objective (meaning the world of objects).

There seems, to me, to be two meanings for the word objective, one meaning being the world of objectivity, or physical things, the other being impartiality, not slanted or bias.

This brings us to a place in which we must determine the difference between the two. In other words, how is the world of objects different from impartiality?

Clearly, we see things, in part, meaning our understanding is not absolute. So, the objective world, to us, is a world of parts, meaning epistemology is progressive, not all at once. So, to my understanding, for us, the objective world can only be known subjectively.

Now, this doesn't answer the question of concrete versus abstract. For me, the concrete world is the world of objectivity even though we can only know it subjectively, or partially, and the abstract world is the world which is not concrete, but subjective.

Which world is not concrete, not objective, but subjective, and partial? For me, that world is the world of sentience, or perception. So, in other words, that which is objective can only be known subjectively, that which is absolute can only be known partially, and that which is concrete can only be known by that which is abstract.

I think the conflation, here, was confusing ideation with substance. In other words, we have ideas, or mere representations, of that which is concrete, not the concrete object itself held epistemologically and ideas of that which is not concrete, not objective, but abstract.

Concrete knowledge (meaning I don't believe knowledge, itself, is concrete) is being conscious of the objective world. Abstract knowledge is knowing subjectivity exists. The conflation I made was with abstractness and subjectivity. Abstractness, for me, is substance and content, meaning sentience, itself, is abstract, not concrete; it is not apart of the physical, material world. However, I believe we have ideas of abstractness, also; and, concreteness, for me, is substance and content, meaning I believe the physical, material world is concrete; and, I also believe we have ideas of concreteness.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2015 3:46:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/26/2015 12:32:13 PM, s-anthony wrote:
But clearly sometimes, there is an objective response to a subjective position. You could be subjectively convinced you knew who ate the last slice of cake, yet a video camera could prove you wrong -- or right.
I see, now, that which you were saying. In that regard, I agree.
Okay, cool.

I guess I was using subjective to mean abstract, as in not concrete or objective (meaning the world of objects).
Subjectivity is normally taken to mean properties of the subject -- that is, the observer.

Objectivity is normally taken to mean properties of the object -- that is, the thing being observed.

We can think of it grammatically, as subject verb object: Anthony investigates the origin of species. Any matter relating to the origin of species -- whether concrete or abstract, specific or universal -- is objective. Any matter relating to Anthony -- whether to do with his prior knowledge, emotions, expectations or preferences -- are subjective.

Both the subjective and the objective can influence the act of exploring, considering, investigating. But the question is always whether what we're seeing is a property of the object of study, or just a reflection of the observer.

In art, subjectivity is often desirable. We want to experience Da Vinci's affect about the Mona Lisa in the painting itself. But in science, subjectivity is intolerable. We don't want to hear about Darwin's love of finches when we're trying to understand evolution.

There seems, to me, to be two meanings for the word objective, one meaning being the world of objectivity, or physical things, the other being impartiality, not slanted or bias.
The way you've divided it there seems very popular outside evidentiary professions (like science, engineering, philosophy, law, accounting, public policy). I often hear people say that an uncertain matter regarding intangibles is "subjective" -- they seem to mean "a matter of opinion", but that pays no heed to how an opinion was formed.

A criminal investigation, for example, brings a matter to trial based on a prosecutor's opinion of whether there's a case to answer. However, for the purpose of justice, it's important that this opinion is based on the facts of the case, and of law; and not the prosecutor's feelings toward the parties involved. So we want it to be an objective, expert opinion.

This brings us to a place in which we must determine the difference between the two. In other words, how is the world of objects different from impartiality?
Before we get too far down that track, both the objective and the subjective can have physical referents: the objective includes things we can see and touch, but also abstractions about them; the subjective includes feelings and apprehensions, but those are attached to the individual feeling and apprehending them. (And that leaves vacant the question of how to categorise things that have no physical referents, things we cannot fully identify, and so on. But I won't go there just for the moment.)

It might be worth pointing out that the distinction between concrete and abstract itself depends on choice of ontology. Viewed one way, a cat is a concrete, furry animal that laps milk. But viewed another way, a cat is a configuration of atoms found throughout nature, which has been abstracted for convenience into a cat.

But is that abstraction a property of the object, or the observer? This sort of question bugs philosophers, but scientists get around it quite well by providing functional, transparent and accountable methods for producing their ontologies in the first place. So in a scientific ontology, we know that a cat is an animal, and so is a rat, but a New York beefsteak, while being made of similar molecules, is not an animal but an animal product.

So as not to mess your thread with too much philosophy, Anthony, this matters in your question of fundamentalism (and my observations about theology too.)

Religion introduces subjectivity directly into its ontology. Religion decides dogmatically what exists, and what relationships things have. Then based on that ontology, it decides its epistemology: what truth ought to look like, and how verification works. Then lo! It discovers (rather circularly) that when you apply a dogmatic ontology to your world, the world looks made for your dogma; while when you apply dogmatic epistemology to the things in your dogmatic ontology, they all validate your dogma too!

At that point, you can draw one of three conclusions. Either:

1) The world is the dogma is the world -- that's fundamentalism;
2) The world is not the dogma, but the dogma is nevertheless has the right ontology and epistemology for explaining the world -- that's interpretative theology; or
3) The reason it all looks so convenient is that you made it convenient from the outset -- that's science.

I think the conflation, here, was confusing ideation with substance. In other words, we have ideas, or mere representations, of that which is concrete, not the concrete object itself held epistemologically and ideas of that which is not concrete, not objective, but abstract.
Yes. There's a philosophical rabbit-hole regarding the apparent blur between the object being studied, and the language of study.

Philosophy is particularly vulnerable to that blur because it relies on reason, intuition and language. And intuition itself is partly built on language, and unless you construct language to be objective, it's subjective by default. And that gives you subjective ontology, and hence, eventually, subjective epistemology.

Science gets around that blur because it treats both language and intuition as untrustworthy. So you can't assume you have the right language or the right experiences to understand your object of study. This has proved especially important in (for example) relativity, quantum mechanics, evolution and cosmogeny -- areas where (the evidence shows us) things do not work the way we're used to them working.

Science has doctrine -- the product of investigation; but it's really important that it avoid dogma -- doctrine for its own sake. That includes dogmatic language, ontology, intuitions, methods and approach to determining truth.

Concrete knowledge (meaning I don't believe knowledge, itself, is concrete) is being conscious of the objective world. Abstract knowledge is knowing subjectivity exists. The conflation I made was with abstractness and subjectivity. Abstractness, for me, is substance and content, meaning sentience, itself, is abstract, not concrete; it is not apart of the physical, material world. However, I believe we have ideas of abstractness, also; and, concreteness, for me, is substance and content, meaning I believe the physical, material world is concrete; and, I also believe we have ideas of concreteness.
Okay, noted. This is a fair philosophical account. however... the problem with philosophy is that it in the end, it has no choice but to trust either language, or intuition, or both. If it turns out (as science has repeatedly demonstrated) that both language and intuition are untrustworthy, then we cannot use philosophy alone to make sense of the world.

This underlined bit is perhaps key to why that science is no longer called Natural Philosophy -- it's now a distinct discipline. But that gap -- between building your own ontologies based on intuitions and linguistic heritage, and the unsentimental, knock-down-rebuild approach science does based on observation -- is also key to why theology and science have become increasingly estranged.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2015 2:35:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Subjectivity is normally taken to mean properties of the subject -- that is, the observer.

I believe those properties are relative to observation. We believe our separate experiences to be universal. However, those experiences are the products of dynamics that occur between the observer and that which is being observed. Take either one out of the equation and observation is lost. The observer, being the mind, is subjective; that which is being observed is objective; observation is the product, or creation, of the dynamics that occur between the observer and the observed. Observation is the product of abstract and concrete realities.

Objectivity is normally taken to mean properties of the object -- that is, the thing being observed.

It is commonly understood the subject is the physical, or objective, entity in which the observation is said to exist; however, for me, the observer is none other than the mind.

For me, sentience is a thing within itself.

I know, for a materialist, this is an absurd idea. Sentience, itself, is subjective and abstract; sentience, itself, is that which is observing. A materialist would have much difficulty swallowing this pill. For, the materialist believes sentience is a physical mechanism and nothing transcends the material world.

I'm not a materialist. I believe the spiritual, or metaphysical, world coincides with the material, or physical, world; and, I believe you can't have one without the other; but, I do not believe they are one and the same.

We can think of it grammatically, as subject verb object: Anthony investigates the origin of species. Any matter relating to the origin of species -- whether concrete or abstract, specific or universal -- is objective. Any matter relating to Anthony -- whether to do with his prior knowledge, emotions, expectations or preferences -- are subjective.

I do not believe abstractions and specifics are objective. I believe they are relative to observation.

My physical body is not an abstraction; it is not subjective.

My mind, not my brain, is subjective. It is my mind observing the object of observation.

Both the subjective and the objective can influence the act of exploring, considering, investigating. But the question is always whether what we're seeing is a property of the object of study, or just a reflection of the observer.

I believe it is both; it is a dynamic between the mental capacity of one and the object being observed.

In art, subjectivity is often desirable. We want to experience Da Vinci's affect about the Mona Lisa in the painting itself. But in science, subjectivity is intolerable. We don't want to hear about Darwin's love of finches when we're trying to understand evolution

You may say it's intolerable but not avoidable.

Before we get too far down that track, both the objective and the subjective can have physical referents: the objective includes things we can see and touch, but also abstractions about them; the subjective includes feelings and apprehensions, but those are attached to the individual feeling and apprehending them. (And that leaves vacant the question of how to categorise things that have no physical referents, things we cannot fully identify, and so on. But I won't go there just for the moment.)

Please name an objective abstraction.

Being associated with with something is not the same as being equivalent to it.

It might be worth pointing out that the distinction between concrete and abstract itself depends on choice of ontology. Viewed one way, a cat is a concrete, furry animal that laps milk. But viewed another way, a cat is a configuration of atoms found throughout nature, which has been abstracted for convenience into a cat.

Whether speaking of a cat or the elemental components of a cat, we are still referring to that which is concrete, that which is objective, that which is material, or physical, in nature.

The abstraction is not the object, itself, whether speaking of a cat or an atom, but the interpretation, or deciphering, of that object into something meaningful; in other words, it's not the object but the cognitive representation of that object.

But is that abstraction a property of the object, or the observer? This sort of question bugs philosophers, but scientists get around it quite well by providing functional, transparent and accountable methods for producing their ontologies in the first place. So in a scientific ontology, we know that a cat is an animal, and so is a rat, but a New York beefsteak, while being made of similar molecules, is not an animal but an animal product.

The abstraction is a property of observation, and observation is a product of the observer and that which is being observed; it's a coming together of subjective and objective realities.

Philosophy is particularly vulnerable to that blur because it relies on reason, intuition and language. And intuition itself is partly built on language, and unless you construct language to be objective, it's subjective by default. And that gives you subjective ontology, and hence, eventually, subjective epistemology.

Symbols, themselves, are concrete representations of concrete objects; they are objective. It's the significance, or meaning, or value we give to symbols which is subjective.