Evidence

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Math is subjective because it requires the user to select a base of axioms that define the system. Within the defined system, it can be considered objective because different people, applying the same rules (without errors) to the same propositions will arrive at the same conclusions.

Yes, 2+2=4, 2+2=11 and 2+2=5 depend on subjective axioms. Though for the general accepted usage of numbers 2+2=5 is not accepted as math, but it is true as a propaganda slogan.

 

[Beth]

And what if they're not necessarily contradictory terms? What if subjective/objective are simply different, but not opposing, sets that, when they overlap (think a Venn diagram), make the subjective valid (i.e., useful)?

I prefer to think of subjective/objective as two ends of a continuum.

Yes, 2+2=4, 2+2=11 and 2+2=5 depend on subjective axioms. Though for the general accepted usage of numbers 2+2=5 is not accepted as math, but it is true as a propaganda slogan.

Yes, 2+2=4 in our usual number system. 2+2=11 in base 3. 2+2=5 for sufficiently large values of 2 (2.49+2.49 =4.98~5). Your qualification "general accepted usage of numbers" is crucial though I'm unaware of 2+2=5 having ever been used as a propaganda slogan.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

That's easy.

1. This candy bar has chocolate in it. (obj)
2. Things with chocolate are delicious. (subj)
C. This candy bar is delicious. (subj) (modus ponens)

Premise 1 is not a matter of interpretation or perspective.

The C is not a fact in the universal sense nor objective. E.g. there are people for which that they don't experience smelling to a rose as pleasant.
Compare with:

Subjective, as I use the term, means what something believes. It may be near universal ("removing my leg would be wrong") but it is an opinion, there are some people with the same facts who believe otherwise (believe or not), so it is not a universal truth; it is only a truth for some people, but not for everyone. It depends primarily on what an individual believes. If you wish to call this a "truth" okay, you can think whatever you wish, but it is not as useful a definition as using the term "truth" to mean a fact that is the same for everyone.

Otherwise I am not interested in a discussion of philosophy, which I have not found particularly useful either.

Well, some people believe that truth are connected to facts and you use a methodology of evidence/truth/what ever to check if it is a fact. They then claim that truth has nothing to with the ability to think(the independent/objective observer), which means it is not true that I think nor that I thinking of a cat.

So we end here - what truth is, is not an universal fact, because what you think truth is, is an opinion.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

...though I'm unaware of 2+2=5 having ever been used as a propaganda slogan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_+_2_=_5#Soviet_planning

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

And what if they're not necessarily contradictory terms? What if subjective/objective are simply different, but not opposing, sets that, when they overlap (think a Venn diagram), make the subjective valid (i.e., useful)?

Yes, that is possible but in practice you need to give a concrete example of how you intend to explain subjective and objective. I am willing to learn

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

"Subjective" is a the most recent in a long line of words that Woo Slingers have tried to plug into the equation:

"X... therefore I get to make stuff up."

Previous attempts at a value for "X" have including philosophy, religion, opinion, "for me" and so forth.

Subjective simply that a personal point of reference has to be taken into account. It isn't a magical word that lets you make stuff up without evidence.

"X... therefore I get to make stuff up."
I like that one.
X=I subjectively believe in universal human rights... therefore (I get to make stuff up as in) if you don't, you are wrong, because you have made a bad argument.
That works for me in practice. Thanks JoeBentley

 

[Nonpareil]

Nonpareil, does evidence is either objectively verifiable or it is not valid apply to all 4 forms of ethics?

Yes.

What does objective mean?

True from every frame of reference.

• The moon is made of the dairy product green cheese.
• 2+2=5.
• You and I are walking down a road. In a ditch lies a dead women and a living new born baby. I take out my gun and kill the baby.

If all 3 cases are wrong, how does that relate to objective evidence?

The moon is not made of green cheese, two plus two does not equal five, and the last question is a false equivocation between objectively and morally (read: subjectively, normatively) wrong. This has been discussed before.

Keep your definitions straight.

Take this version of a definition of the word objective:
of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers; having reality independent of the mind

As far as I can tell only the first case, the one with the moon, has to do objective evidence as wrong or false go.

Then you aren't paying attention.

What is the difference between subjective, inter-subjective, intra-subjective and objective? What is the similarity between these words?

Well, for one thing, the middle two are irrelevant to the discussion at hand, as they are psychological/anthropological terms, and further indicate that you really don't understand what's being said to you.

 

[Nonpareil]

So if you can't use scientific evidence for normative ethics, but all evidence is objective evidence then someone might be able to answer this:
What is objective evidence?
What is scientific objective evidence?
What is non-scientific objective evidence?
How do you provide objective evidence for normative ethics?

In order: a claim that is demonstrably objectively true, the same, a contradiction in terms, and by defining your terms.

This is not difficult.

 

[MRC_Hans]

The moon is made of the dairy product green cheese.

Falsifiable theory.

2+2=5.

Mathematically wrong. Readily verifiable.

You and I are walking down a road. In a ditch lies a dead women and a living new born baby. I take out my gun and kill the baby.

Moral question. Wrong in normal situations.

If all 3 cases are wrong, how does that relate to objective evidence?

All cases are wrong, but not the same kind of 'wrong'. Normal everyday language tends to let us down when describing more complex matters.

As far as I can tell only the first case, the one with the moon, has to do objective evidence as wrong or false go.

Obviously, while abstract, #2 is also quite objective.

Hans

 

[Giordano]

Yes, 2+2=4, 2+2=11 and 2+2=5 depend on subjective axioms. Though for the general accepted usage of numbers 2+2=5 is not accepted as math, but it is true as a propaganda slogan.

No, it is not true in any terms, if we use the most common axioms (base 10, etc.). The symbols may be arbitrary (the symbol that stands for 2 units, for example), but so is any discipline in which we choose to define physical attributes as symbols (blue is a different word in different languages but refers to the same color wavelength). But whatever the symbols chosen in math, 2 units plus 2 units doe not equal 5 units whatever you may chose as symbols. 2+2=5 may be what a propaganda slogan may wish people to think, they may even succeed (temporarily), but it is not true as I see it. Any acceptance is subjective- it is an opinion only.

Now I agree that certain axioms have been used to unify and simplify certain aspects of math. For instance, 2+2 equals 10 in base 4, but the symbol 10 in base 5 still equals **** units.

 

[I Am The Scum]

The C is not a fact in the universal sense nor objective. E.g. there are people for which that they don't experience smelling to a rose as pleasant.

I used an objective fact (#1) as evidence for a subjective conclusion (C). You said this could not be done.

 

[MaartenVergu]

In my opinion it all depends on the agreement about what we call 'objective' and what do we call 'subjective'? What are the criteria.
The criterium is: testable in experimental conditions. Measurable.
So, there is this criterium, wich is important in order to make the distinction, I think.

 

[I Am The Scum]

No, it is not true in any terms, if we use the most common axioms (base 10, etc.). The symbols may be arbitrary (the symbol that stands for 2 units, for example), but so is any discipline in which we choose to define physical attributes as symbols (blue is a different word in different languages but refers to the same color wavelength). But whatever the symbols chosen in math, 2 units plus 2 units doe not equal 5 units whatever you may chose as symbols. 2+2=5 may be what a propaganda slogan may wish people to think, they may even succeed (temporarily), but it is not true as I see it. Any acceptance is subjective- it is an opinion only.

This is a good point. It's kind of like taking any post in this thread and then criticizing it because it makes no sense to a person who speaks only Chinese.

Though I don't really think the objective/subjective distinction applies. We're talking about an agreed upon set of "rules" or methods, not a statement of fact, opinion, preference, etc.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

I will sum up.

"I have no beliefs, I only use objective evidence."
If you pay attention, close enough, you can observe that in action for some people who self-identify as understanding objective evidence, science and all those related words, yet according to you guys that can't be the case because there is no objective evidence for normative ethics. The same goes for whether you find philosophy, collecting stamps or what ever useful.
In short if you find something useful, it is not possible to give objective evidence for it being useful. Useful is an subjective opinion. Now I accept those of you don't find philosophy useful, but that is a matter of opinion or belief if you like. In practice nobody can live a life being only a scientist. That is not unique to science though.
Philosophy is not everything.
Science in not everything.
Religion is not everything.
Objective evidence is not everything.

So what is the positive point of this?
I am not special in an objective sense nor do I hold objective evidence/authority over you in any normative ethical sense. That is so the other way around too.

It is related to this quote:

“There is something infantile in the presumption that somebody else has a responsibility to give your life meaning and point… The truly adult view, by contrast, is that our life is as meaningful, as full and as wonderful as we choose to make it.”
― Richard Dawkins

There is no objective as outside you meaning, purpose or normative ethical standard. The same is the case for politics, so just because you and I are skeptics doesn't mean that we are a we in practice.
So for politics sometimes "I am right and you are wrong, because you use a wrong/bad argument" is "poison" if you want a we.

So the idea that we should all be the same just because we are skeptics, doesn't work in practice. And as long as we in practice don't know how to replace woo-beliefs, we are stuck with: I am right and you are wrong, because you use a bad argument.
You do BTW use a bad argument as perceived by me, if you don't feel like me when it comes to politics From there doesn't follow how I ought to treat you. For that I use another combination of my brain

 

[Nonpareil]

I will sum up.

No, allow me.

You don't understand the definitions of "objective" and "subjective". You fail to differentiate between objective and normative definitions of "right". You do not understand what a normative statement actually is or how objective standards of evidence can apply to it once said normative statement has actually been defined. You do not even understand how abstract representations of systems - such as mathematics - can be objectively verified. In short, you are so far from even having a basis to build an argument on that you couldn't see it with the Hubble Deep Field telescope.

And yet you think you're winning.

EDIT: Forgot to mention the copious strawmanning that indicates a lack of comprehension regarding what's been said. I think that should cover it.

 

[MRC_Hans]

If you pay attention, close enough, you can observe that in action for some people who self-identify as understanding objective evidence, science and all those related words, yet according to you guys that can't be the case because there is no objective evidence for normative ethics.

Of course you can. Normative ethics is what the majority of a given population accepts, at a given time. It may not be rational, it may not be coherent, but it is certainly objective.

The same goes for whether you find philosophy, collecting stamps or what ever useful.
In short if you find something useful, it is not possible to give objective evidence for it being useful.

Pleasing me might be useful enough.

Useful is an subjective opinion.

It is till an objective concept, even if the criterion I use is subjective.

In practice nobody can live a life being only a scientist.

At least, it would be a very dull life.

Objective evidence is not everything.

Of course not. There exists such things as art, fiction, love, etc. However, when it comes to describing the real world, objectivity IS everything

Hans

 

[PixyMisa]

I will sum up.

No. No you won't.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

No, allow me.

You don't understand the definitions of "objective" and "subjective". You fail to differentiate between objective and normative definitions of "right". You do not understand what a normative statement actually is or how objective standards of evidence can apply to it once said normative statement has actually been defined. You do not even understand how abstract representations of systems - such as mathematics - can be objectively verified. In short, you are so far from even having a basis to build an argument on that you couldn't see it with the Hubble Deep Field telescope.

And yet you think you're winning.

EDIT: Forgot to mention the copious strawmanning that indicates a lack of comprehension regarding what's been said. I think that should cover it.

I will answer mathematics now. Between you and I looking at some apples and you stating there are 4 apples and me stating that gravity is physical process, you do the following:
Imagine a world without about any entities with cognitive abilities and then ask yourself this:
Would there still be 4 apples?
Would there still be gravity?
Now the answer for the apples is the following - the apples are still there, but there is nothing in the apples which makes them four apples. Mathematics is physical and all that, but mathematics has a subjective element. The ability to do mathematics is physical and cognitive, where as gravity is physical, but not cognitive. The short and brutal version is that 4 requires the ability to count to 4, that is what makes it subjective in part. There is a reality for which you and I can count to 4 and say there are 4 apples but that is neither strictly objective nor strictly subjective. It is a mix of objective and subjective.
There is 4 apples requires in part a brain to take place, where as gravity doesn't require a brain to happen. That is the difference.
In short 4 requires a physical and cognitive process, where as gravity doesn't require cognition to take place. In other words there are 4 apples objectively as a part of reality, but to say that are 4 apples requires a brain. Mathematics is weird
In practice for what works - gravity works and 4 works, but 4 requires a brain to work, where as gravity doesn't.

 

[Nonpareil]

I will answer mathematics now.

Oh, I'm sure you'll try.

Between you and I looking at some apples and you stating there are 4 apples and me stating that gravity is physical process, you do the following:
Imagine a world without about any entities with cognitive abilities and then ask yourself this:
Would there still be 4 apples?
Would there still be gravity?

Yes and yes.

Now the answer for the apples is the following - the apples are still there, but there is nothing in the apples which makes them four apples.

Meaningless word games.

Mathematics is physical and all that, but mathematics has a subjective element.

No, it doesn't.

You don't know what "subjective" means.

 

[Fudbucker]

Okay, it is simple once you know to look for.
Nonpareil, sorry to drag you into philosophy but the problem is that there is no evidence for your claim itself, because your rule of evidence is not objective itself.
Another version is this:
"I only accept non-subjective evidence."
The problem is that the claim itself is subjective and thus has no evidence.

Now to the bone. Can something be physical and subjective? If yes, then you can't give evidence for it being objective/non-subjective, because it is subjective. That is it or you accept that something can be in the same sense and at the same time subjective and objective.

So please explain what you guys mean be subjective and objective and how that relates to physical?

Evidence is anything that confirms (or disconfirms) a theory. It can be objective or subjective.

Example of objective evidence: Successful drug trial that confirms the belief in a drug's efficacy.

Example of subjective evidence: experiencing a blackout while drunk, which confirms the theory "I'm an alcoholic, and need help".