Total Posts:51|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Certainty Is Not a Product of Objectivity

s-anthony
Posts: 3,462
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2017 7:43:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
If I would not be biased and considered many different possibilities, the thing I should fear most is becoming overwhelmed. The thought, or better yet the belief, anything could happen at any moment is nerve-racking to say the least.

In order to save myself from anxiety, I imagine, only, the most likely things will happen. This comforts me but also creates blind spots in my ability to anticipate unlikely events. There is a dilemma I see in this reasoning: first of all, do we believe anything could happen with equal certainty and reduce ourselves to a bundle of nerves or do we believe, only, those things most likely to happen will happen and create blind spots in our ability to anticipate unlikely events?

Neither choice is advantageous; on the one hand, we are made worry warts riddled with anxiety; and, on the other hand, we find ourselves left in the lurch, unprepared for misfortunate events.

For me, reality is not believing all things will happen with equal certainty; neither is it relegating unlikely events to the realm of disbelief but rather accepting the fact all things, even if unlikely, are possible. This is not to say all things are equally probable but, rather, all things are possible.

I believe we must draw a distinction between beliefs and acceptances. By accepting all possibilities, it enables us to keep our minds open; it prepares us to better acclimate to unexpected circumstances; it prevents us from becoming too narrow in our views of the world; but, accepting all possibilities is not equivalent to believing all things; I'm not conflating possibility with probability; I'm realizing all things are possible but not equally probable. This allows us to consider the most likely possibilities without obscuring them with the least likely explanations.

However, the problem I see with this is creating out of probability a criterion for truth; a phenomenon mustn't be the most likely of events, to occur. Using probability, as a reasonable guide, is acceptable as long as we acknowledge it may on occasion lead us astray.

Another problem with probability is probability is not static, but dynamic. Assuming the probability of a phenomenon is accurate is assuming all the variables are taken into consideration. In many cases, this is not achievable on the macroscale; not to mention the microscale. Probabilities are, at best, estimations of likelihood based on the finite perspective of statisticians; as the variables change and are compounded so do probabilities. This is the reason for controversies surrounding many phenomena.

Facts are scarcer than many scientists would have us believe. A fact is an actual occurrence; it is not something which has had an extremely high probability of occurring in the past; neither is it something which has an extremely high likelihood of occurring in the future; it is something which has occurred and nothing else.

To argue over anything other than something which has absolute certainty is to argue over assumptions.

This begs the question: what can absolutely be certain? Can we be certain the sun shines in the sky?

Nearly everyone would emphatically say, "Yes! We see the light and feel the heat." This is a certainty which is seen as absurd to question. The arguments against the sun shining would be so nearly impossible to even mention them would be seen as silly. Yet, no phenomenon has absolute verification; if it did, it would not be falsifiable; and, not being falsifiable, it would not be called objective. Objective phenomena are falsifiable, and with falsiability comes a degree of uncertainty. Consequently, all beliefs in the phenomenal world are subject to doubt.

If all beliefs in the phenomenal world lack absolute certainty, does certainty exist?

Certainty exists as a product of the imagination; it is not objective but rather subjective. In other words, I can certainly believe things are true for me; I cannot be certain they are objectively true. For me, the sun is shining; I see the light and feel the heat. For me to say it is not shining would go against that which I believe to be true, and for me, that would be lying. However, I cannot know for sure the things which are true for others. I suppose they have similar experiences, but I cannot know with certainty. They can tell me they do, but there are always possibilities of miscommunications and deception. The phenomenal world is based on probabilities; we can never be certain about anything other than our own subjective experience.
3RU7AL
Posts: 2,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2017 6:23:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2017 7:43:13 AM, s-anthony wrote some stuff:

Well stated.

I would go a step further and say that "objectivity" is fundamentally undetectable, like Immanuel Kant's noumenal realm.
Believing in "objective reality" is just like believing in heaven.
Please adhere to obvious epistemological limits.
ethang5, PureX, and I agree on... http://www.debate.org...
How to have a Rational Conversation http://www.debate.org...
Cognitive bias
Bias blindspot
What is Alief?

+proHUMAN
s-anthony
Posts: 3,462
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2017 9:46:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2017 6:23:39 PM, 3RU7AL wrote:
At 5/9/2017 7:43:13 AM, s-anthony wrote some stuff:

Well stated.

I would go a step further and say that "objectivity" is fundamentally undetectable, like Immanuel Kant's noumenal realm.

Even though I do not believe we can know things objectively, I believe without objectivity subjectivity would not exist. It's like saying without the whole there is no part.
3RU7AL
Posts: 2,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2017 2:00:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2017 9:46:54 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 5/9/2017 6:23:39 PM, 3RU7AL wrote:
At 5/9/2017 7:43:13 AM, s-anthony wrote some stuff:

Well stated.

I would go a step further and say that "objectivity" is fundamentally undetectable, like Immanuel Kant's noumenal realm.

Even though I do not believe we can know things objectively, I believe without objectivity subjectivity would not exist. It's like saying without the whole there is no part.

I agree with your statement 100%. "Cogito, ergo sum." would strongly imply that certainly, "something" "exists", a "whole" that "we" are merely a part of, but we can say absolutely nothing ("objectively") about the nature of that "whole" (or at least about the part of it that we cannot subjectively experience).

For instance, many people presume that "objective" "reality" is "eternal" and "unchanging". However it seems clear to me that such assertions are clearly beyond our epistemological limits.
Believing in "objective reality" is just like believing in heaven.
Please adhere to obvious epistemological limits.
ethang5, PureX, and I agree on... http://www.debate.org...
How to have a Rational Conversation http://www.debate.org...
Cognitive bias
Bias blindspot
What is Alief?

+proHUMAN
s-anthony
Posts: 3,462
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2017 4:35:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/11/2017 2:00:03 PM, 3RU7AL wrote:
At 5/9/2017 9:46:54 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 5/9/2017 6:23:39 PM, 3RU7AL wrote:
At 5/9/2017 7:43:13 AM, s-anthony wrote some stuff:

Well stated.

I would go a step further and say that "objectivity" is fundamentally undetectable, like Immanuel Kant's noumenal realm.

Even though I do not believe we can know things objectively, I believe without objectivity subjectivity would not exist. It's like saying without the whole there is no part.

I agree with your statement 100%. "Cogito, ergo sum." would strongly imply that certainly, "something" "exists", a "whole" that "we" are merely a part of, but we can say absolutely nothing ("objectively") about the nature of that "whole" (or at least about the part of it that we cannot subjectively experience).

For instance, many people presume that "objective" "reality" is "eternal" and "unchanging". However it seems clear to me that such assertions are clearly beyond our epistemological limits.

I think the reason many people assume objectivity is eternal and unchanging is because phenomena require changes in both time and space; it is relativity which allows for the sensation of change in time and space, not objectivity.
3RU7AL
Posts: 2,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2017 5:39:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/11/2017 4:35:16 PM, s-anthony wrote:

For instance, many people presume that "objective" "reality" is "eternal" and "unchanging". However it seems clear to me that such assertions are clearly beyond our epistemological limits.

I think the reason many people assume objectivity is eternal and unchanging is because phenomena require changes in both time and space; it is relativity which allows for the sensation of change in time and space, not objectivity.

Do you think it would be fair to say "objectivity" is "un-relativity"?
Believing in "objective reality" is just like believing in heaven.
Please adhere to obvious epistemological limits.
ethang5, PureX, and I agree on... http://www.debate.org...
How to have a Rational Conversation http://www.debate.org...
Cognitive bias
Bias blindspot
What is Alief?

+proHUMAN
s-anthony
Posts: 3,462
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2017 7:49:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/11/2017 5:39:20 PM, 3RU7AL wrote:
At 5/11/2017 4:35:16 PM, s-anthony wrote:

For instance, many people presume that "objective" "reality" is "eternal" and "unchanging". However it seems clear to me that such assertions are clearly beyond our epistemological limits.

I think the reason many people assume objectivity is eternal and unchanging is because phenomena require changes in both time and space; it is relativity which allows for the sensation of change in time and space, not objectivity.

Do you think it would be fair to say "objectivity" is "un-relativity"?

Yes.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2017 3:15:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
We experience the factual nature of existence.
We are part of actual events.
We experience objective facts.
We are in reality, a part of reality, it we want to know it, it is here.
All things are transient.
3RU7AL
Posts: 2,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2017 3:30:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/12/2017 3:15:07 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
We experience the factual nature of existence.
We are part of actual events.
We experience objective facts.
We are in reality, a part of reality, it we want to know it, it is here.
All things are transient.

Please provide your preferred definition of "objectivity" and links to philosophical support for your statement, "We experience objective facts."
Believing in "objective reality" is just like believing in heaven.
Please adhere to obvious epistemological limits.
ethang5, PureX, and I agree on... http://www.debate.org...
How to have a Rational Conversation http://www.debate.org...
Cognitive bias
Bias blindspot
What is Alief?

+proHUMAN
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2017 5:52:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/12/2017 3:30:16 PM, 3RU7AL wrote:
At 5/12/2017 3:15:07 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
We experience the factual nature of existence.
We are part of actual events.
We experience objective facts.
We are in reality, a part of reality, it we want to know it, it is here.
All things are transient.

Please provide your preferred definition of "objectivity"
Factual, an actual occurrence.

and links to philosophical support for your statement, "We experience objective facts."

It is impossible to know Reality through logic and science. It is known only in intuition which is a direct vision and experience transcending intellectual processes and scientific observations and reasonings. The elan vital is a creative spirit which defies the attempts of the mathematical manner of approaches to it, and demands a deeper sympathy and feeling which will enter into its very essence. In intuition we comprehend the truth of things as a whole, as a complete process of the dynamic life of the spiritual consciousness. Instinct is nearer to intuition than is intellect. Intuition is instinct evolved, ennobled and become disinterested and self-conscious. Instinct, when not directed to action, but centred in knowledge, becomes intuition. Intuition has nothing of the mechanistic and static operations of the logical and the scientific intellect. Intellect is the action of consciousness on dead matter, and so it cannot enter the spirit of life. Any true philosophy should, therefore, energise and transform the conclusion of the intellect with the immediate apprehensions of intuition. Reality has to be lived, not merely understood.
http://www.swami-krishnananda.org...
3RU7AL
Posts: 2,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2017 7:24:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/12/2017 5:52:29 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

I really like your source.

I have a question for you though, if two people experience different intuitions about "objective reality", how can they resolve the perceived conflict?
Believing in "objective reality" is just like believing in heaven.
Please adhere to obvious epistemological limits.
ethang5, PureX, and I agree on... http://www.debate.org...
How to have a Rational Conversation http://www.debate.org...
Cognitive bias
Bias blindspot
What is Alief?

+proHUMAN
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2017 7:58:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/12/2017 7:24:37 PM, 3RU7AL wrote:
At 5/12/2017 5:52:29 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

I really like your source.

I have a question for you though, if two people experience different intuitions about "objective reality", how can they resolve the perceived conflict?

Well, intuitions can be mistaken.
If one is mistaken, as surely it must be, this becomes known, and the false belief is discarded.
If one is mistaken, but does not become known, well, that is unfortunate. There would be no resolution.
3RU7AL
Posts: 2,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2017 8:26:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/12/2017 7:58:13 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

Well, intuitions can be mistaken.
If one is mistaken, as surely it must be, this becomes known, and the false belief is discarded.
If one is mistaken, but does not become known, well, that is unfortunate. There would be no resolution.

Ok, sounds good.

So, for example if I perform my intuitive (objective) investigation and I find certain characteristics of "god" and you or someone else finds different characteristics of "god" (using the same objective method) then, logically we can't both be right, but the only way to figure out who is right would be to continue our intuitive (objective) investigations until we agree.

This sounds subjective. Is there some system or device that you know of that would distinguish this type of (objective) investigation from something we might call a subjective investigation?
Believing in "objective reality" is just like believing in heaven.
Please adhere to obvious epistemological limits.
ethang5, PureX, and I agree on... http://www.debate.org...
How to have a Rational Conversation http://www.debate.org...
Cognitive bias
Bias blindspot
What is Alief?

+proHUMAN
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2017 8:50:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/12/2017 8:26:37 PM, 3RU7AL wrote:
At 5/12/2017 7:58:13 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

Well, intuitions can be mistaken.
If one is mistaken, as surely it must be, this becomes known, and the false belief is discarded.
If one is mistaken, but does not become known, well, that is unfortunate. There would be no resolution.

Ok, sounds good.

So, for example if I perform my intuitive (objective) investigation and I find certain characteristics of "god" and you or someone else finds different characteristics of "god" (using the same objective method) then, logically we can't both be right, but the only way to figure out who is right would be to continue our intuitive (objective) investigations until we agree.

Or, we could part company.

This sounds subjective. Is there some system or device that you know of that would distinguish this type of (objective) investigation from something we might call a subjective investigation?

If there is no agreement, there is no subjectivity.
Is it possible that one is correct, and one is not? Of course. What does it matter?

Although my source did not discuss Zen, I got there through Zen. In the history of Zen there have been opposing masters, who could not agree on some particular issue. They parted, and took their students with them, and a new school was started.
3RU7AL
Posts: 2,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2017 9:04:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/12/2017 8:50:50 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

Thank you for entertaining my questions.

It sounds like you would agree with the title of this topic,

"Certainty Is Not a Product of Objectivity".
Believing in "objective reality" is just like believing in heaven.
Please adhere to obvious epistemological limits.
ethang5, PureX, and I agree on... http://www.debate.org...
How to have a Rational Conversation http://www.debate.org...
Cognitive bias
Bias blindspot
What is Alief?

+proHUMAN
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2017 9:44:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/12/2017 9:04:58 PM, 3RU7AL wrote:
At 5/12/2017 8:50:50 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

Thank you for entertaining my questions.

It sounds like you would agree with the title of this topic,

"Certainty Is Not a Product of Objectivity".

Based on the OP, and what followed, difficult to say.
In Science there is no certainty.
For some individuals certainty is a product of wishful thinking.
Certainty can come from many things.
I would think for some individuals certainty is a product of what they consider objectivity.
So, how is the title to be taken? My certainty comes from actual occurrences. Objectivity is a word used by scientists, who say there is no certainty. They believe they have objectivity, but do not have certainty, so for them certainty can not be a product of objectivity. That would be a truism, hardly worth mentioning.
dylancatlow
Posts: 13,530
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2017 3:47:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
To claim that there are no locally-derivable truths that apply to everything is contradictory, since if the claim is true, it represents just the sort of broad statement which it claims is impossible to make.
ebuc
Posts: 2,915
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2017 2:56:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Certainty is derived from metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts{ information } understanding and comprehension of via nervous systems apprehension of 3D information as quanta/bits or any aggregate collection thereof.

Cetrainty: there exists only five possible regular/symmetrical polyhedra of Universe, or any finite set of local universe's as would be hypothesized by multiverse scenarios.

tetra{4}hedron, octa{8}hedron, icosa{20}hedron

hexa{6}hedron/cube and pentagonal dodeca{12}hedron.

Ergo certainty of absolute truths exist. Is that objective or subjective? I dunno.

ebuc
" U "niverse > Universe > Universe I -verse < you-verse we-verse > them-verse
Gravitational SPACE ( + )
Dark Energy SPACE )-(
Time >66.4< --frequency ^v^v
Mind/Intellect 12--3-fold 4-fold and 5-fold
Biological *8* --bilateral four's
Spin <left 6 right >---Pitch, Yaw Roll{ 3 * 2 = 6 }
IS >2<--positive and negative tetrhaedron
s-anthony
Posts: 3,462
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2017 11:22:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
To claim that there are no locally-derivable truths that apply to everything is contradictory, since if the claim is true, it represents just the sort of broad statement which it claims is impossible to make.

If a truth has absolute certainty, it needs no verification because its not relative.
3RU7AL
Posts: 2,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2017 9:36:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/13/2017 3:47:47 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
To claim that there are no locally-derivable truths that apply to everything is contradictory, since if the claim is true, it represents just the sort of broad statement which it claims is impossible to make.

I believe the claim should be more precisely stated that there are very few locally-derivable truths that apply to "everything", namely truths that are verifiable within clearly defined epistemological limits.
Believing in "objective reality" is just like believing in heaven.
Please adhere to obvious epistemological limits.
ethang5, PureX, and I agree on... http://www.debate.org...
How to have a Rational Conversation http://www.debate.org...
Cognitive bias
Bias blindspot
What is Alief?

+proHUMAN
ebuc
Posts: 2,915
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2017 10:52:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/14/2017 11:22:02 PM, s-anthony wrote:
To claim that there are no locally-derivable truths that apply to everything is contradictory, since if the claim is true, it represents just the sort of broad statement which it claims is impossible to make.

If a truth has absolute certainty, it needs no verification because its not relative.

H,mm absolute truths are relative to other truths--- related too ---it is just that not contradictory of other truths. Ex my given absolute truths below have a dual i.e. all that is not those five listed are not regular/symmetrical polyhedral.

At minimum all absolute truths are relative to their dual truths.

ebuc

Certainty is derived from metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts{ information } understanding and comprehension of via nervous systems apprehension of 3D information as quanta/bits or any aggregate collection thereof.
Cetrainty: there exists only five possible regular/symmetrical polyhedra of Universe, or any finite set of local universe's as would be hypothesized by multiverse scenarios.
tetra{4}hedron, octa{8}hedron, icosa{20}hedron
hexa{6}hedron/cube and pentagonal dodeca{12}hedron.
Ergo certainty of absolute truths exist. Is that objective or subjective? I dunno.
" U "niverse > Universe > Universe I -verse < you-verse we-verse > them-verse
Gravitational SPACE ( + )
Dark Energy SPACE )-(
Time >66.4< --frequency ^v^v
Mind/Intellect 12--3-fold 4-fold and 5-fold
Biological *8* --bilateral four's
Spin <left 6 right >---Pitch, Yaw Roll{ 3 * 2 = 6 }
IS >2<--positive and negative tetrhaedron
s-anthony
Posts: 3,462
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2017 11:45:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/15/2017 10:52:01 PM, ebuc wrote:
At 5/14/2017 11:22:02 PM, s-anthony wrote:
To claim that there are no locally-derivable truths that apply to everything is contradictory, since if the claim is true, it represents just the sort of broad statement which it claims is impossible to make.

If a truth has absolute certainty, it needs no verification because its not relative.

H,mm absolute truths are relative to other truths--- related too ---it is just that not contradictory of other truths. Ex my given absolute truths below have a dual i.e. all that is not those five listed are not regular/symmetrical polyhedral.

At minimum all absolute truths are relative to their dual truths.

ebuc

Certainty is derived from metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts{ information } understanding and comprehension of via nervous systems apprehension of 3D information as quanta/bits or any aggregate collection thereof.
Cetrainty: there exists only five possible regular/symmetrical polyhedra of Universe, or any finite set of local universe's as would be hypothesized by multiverse scenarios.
tetra{4}hedron, octa{8}hedron, icosa{20}hedron
hexa{6}hedron/cube and pentagonal dodeca{12}hedron.
Ergo certainty of absolute truths exist. Is that objective or subjective? I dunno.

Saying truth is relative, for me, means it's conditional. For instance, the statement, "The sun is shining," is conditional to your global position. If you said, "The sun is shining," and it's nighttime, then, that statement would not be true for your situation.
ebuc
Posts: 2,915
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2017 12:17:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/16/2017 11:45:45 AM, s-anthony wrote:
Saying truth is relative, for me, means it's conditional. For instance, the statement, "The sun is shining," is conditional to your global position. If you said, "The sun is shining," and it's nighttime, then, that statement would not be true for your situation.

This only confirms what I stated in my last reply to you that truth is relative, however, to clarify, my previous post was only involving an absolute truth, whereas here above your considering only a relative truth.

So first off, when were talking truths we have to understand the distinction between;

1} absolute truths, and,
...{ I gave dual set as be relative to it diametric opposite set }...

2} relative truths.
..{ sun is always shinning, just not shinning on everyone at same time or on some never }......

ebuc
" U "niverse > Universe > Universe I -verse < you-verse we-verse > them-verse
Gravitational SPACE ( + )
Dark Energy SPACE )-(
Time >66.4< --frequency ^v^v
Mind/Intellect 12--3-fold 4-fold and 5-fold
Biological *8* --bilateral four's
Spin <left 6 right >---Pitch, Yaw Roll{ 3 * 2 = 6 }
IS >2<--positive and negative tetrhaedron
s-anthony
Posts: 3,462
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2017 12:57:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/16/2017 12:17:54 PM, ebuc wrote:
At 5/16/2017 11:45:45 AM, s-anthony wrote:
Saying truth is relative, for me, means it's conditional. For instance, the statement, "The sun is shining," is conditional to your global position. If you said, "The sun is shining," and it's nighttime, then, that statement would not be true for your situation.

This only confirms what I stated in my last reply to you that truth is relative, however, to clarify, my previous post was only involving an absolute truth, whereas here above your considering only a relative truth.

So first off, when were talking truths we have to understand the distinction between;

1} absolute truths, and,
...{ I gave dual set as be relative to it diametric opposite set }...

2} relative truths.
..{ sun is always shinning, just not shinning on everyone at same time or on some never }......

ebuc

Math is a language; it's made of symbols and values. The values given to those symbols are not universal; they are not intrinsic to the symbols, themselves. We associate certain values with certain symbols. Truth, which is absolute, is not dependent on relative meaning; it has intrinsic value.
dylancatlow
Posts: 13,530
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2017 2:40:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/14/2017 11:22:02 PM, s-anthony wrote:
To claim that there are no locally-derivable truths that apply to everything is contradictory, since if the claim is true, it represents just the sort of broad statement which it claims is impossible to make.

If a truth has absolute certainty, it needs no verification because its not relative.

That's true, but what makes you think that statements of this type are limited to just yours (not that it's a real example).
dylancatlow
Posts: 13,530
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2017 2:41:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/15/2017 9:36:25 PM, 3RU7AL wrote:
At 5/13/2017 3:47:47 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
To claim that there are no locally-derivable truths that apply to everything is contradictory, since if the claim is true, it represents just the sort of broad statement which it claims is impossible to make.

I believe the claim should be more precisely stated that there are very few locally-derivable truths that apply to "everything", namely truths that are verifiable within clearly defined epistemological limits.

There are actually infinitely many such statements. Have a look at mathematics.
3RU7AL
Posts: 2,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2017 3:17:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/16/2017 2:41:51 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

I believe the claim should be more precisely stated that there are very few locally-derivable truths that apply to "everything", namely truths that are verifiable within clearly defined epistemological limits.

There are actually infinitely many such statements. Have a look at mathematics.

I'm pretty sure there aren't "infinitely many" such statements.

Strangely, "mathematics" doesn't seem to be apropos to all questions.
Believing in "objective reality" is just like believing in heaven.
Please adhere to obvious epistemological limits.
ethang5, PureX, and I agree on... http://www.debate.org...
How to have a Rational Conversation http://www.debate.org...
Cognitive bias
Bias blindspot
What is Alief?

+proHUMAN
dylancatlow
Posts: 13,530
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2017 3:18:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/16/2017 3:17:24 PM, 3RU7AL wrote:
At 5/16/2017 2:41:51 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

I believe the claim should be more precisely stated that there are very few locally-derivable truths that apply to "everything", namely truths that are verifiable within clearly defined epistemological limits.

There are actually infinitely many such statements. Have a look at mathematics.

I'm pretty sure there aren't "infinitely many" such statements.

Strangely, "mathematics" doesn't seem to be apropos to all questions.

1 + 1 = 2

1 + 1 + 1 = 3

Etc

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.