Evidence

[Nonpareil]

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".

Nitpick for the sake of clarity, since Tommy is having so much trouble with the concept:

A blackout while drunk is objective evidence. The threshold at which you choose to define yourself as needing help is subjective.

 

[Fudbucker]

Nitpick for the sake of clarity, since Tommy is having so much trouble with the concept:

A blackout while drunk is objective evidence. The threshold at which you choose to define yourself as needing help is subjective.

How is a blackout not a subjective experience? I've had one before and it was scary as hell- at one point my memories of the night just ended. There was a blank period of about 12 hours. Scared the hell out of me.

 

[MRC_Hans]

How is a blackout not a subjective experience? I've had one before and it was scary as hell- at one point my memories of the night just ended. There was a blank period of about 12 hours. Scared the hell out of me.

The blackout is objective.
You being scared is subjective, albeit sensible.

Hans

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

...

You don't know what "subjective" means.

I, person X, can subjectively decide what subjective means for you, because you don't know what subjective means.


One (possible) skeptics: Okay, take the word paradigm.
A TRUE SKEPTIC: That is woo.
One (possible) skeptics: No, it can be used as woo, but it is not woo.
A TRUE SKEPTIC: Oh, you mean social sciences and humanities. I don't find that useful.

That is in part, what happens when you look close enough. I am not a skeptic, because I don't come from the "right in-group". That is not particular to me, I am not special, but it can happen, when you get 2 skeptics together. One from natural science/math and so and one not from natural science.
So here it is in absurd sense:
Someone: Everything is physical.
Me: No!

So I will stop play word-games, when you(singular) get one of the points of skepticism.
There is in practice no absolute, universal, certain and so on singular methodology and it is in an absurd sense a form of rationalistic tautology to think that everything is physical actually says something important. All it says, is "everything is everything" and "physical is physical".

So I don't get subjective and all the rest of words - I get it. I am not a natural scientists, but here is what I get:

This Is Your Brain on Metaphors

...And what is the frontal cortex good for? Emotional regulation, gratification postponement, executive decision-making, long-term planning. We study hard in high school to get admitted to a top college to get into grad school to get a good job to get into the nursing home of our choice. Gophers don’t do that. ...
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.co...p=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=2

That is natural science, but it is also something else. You can't see it objectively with a reductive methodology, because it is culture, but it is there if you want to understand how science can inform, what we should do.

With regards

 

[Nonpareil]

How is a blackout not a subjective experience?

It happened. From every point of reference, you passed out as a result of being drunk. It is objective.

How you choose to react to it is subjective.

I, person X, can subjectively decide what subjective means for you, because you don't know what subjective means.

The fact that you think I'm deciding what subjective means for you only illustrates that you don't understand what's being said.

One (possible) skeptics: Okay, take the word paradigm.
A TRUE SKEPTIC: That is woo.
One (possible) skeptics: No, it can be used as woo, but it is not woo.
A TRUE SKEPTIC: Oh, you mean social sciences and humanities. I don't find that useful.

That is in part, what happens when you look close enough. I am not a skeptic, because I don't come from the "right in-group". That is not particular to me, I am not special, but it can happen, when you get 2 skeptics together. One from natural science/math and so and one not from natural science.
So here it is in absurd sense:
Someone: Everything is physical.
Me: No!

So I will stop play word-games, when you(singular) get one of the points of skepticism.
There is in practice no absolute, universal, certain and so on singular methodology and it is in an absurd sense a form of rationalistic tautology to think that everything is physical actually says something important. All it says, is "everything is everything" and "physical is physical".

I would call this a straw man, but that would imply that it was even bordering on coherent.

So I don't get subjective and all the rest of words - I get it.

Apparently not, because you keep trying to act as though you do.

I am not a natural scientists, but here is what I get:

That is natural science, but it is also something else. You can't see it objectively with a reductive methodology

Yes, you can.

You don't understand what "objective" means.

 

[I Am The Scum]

How is a blackout not a subjective experience? I've had one before and it was scary as hell- at one point my memories of the night just ended. There was a blank period of about 12 hours. Scared the hell out of me.

The experience is subjective, but we can make objective statements about experiences.

"Susan is in a lot of pain."
"Most people enjoy listening to music."

 

[Nonpareil]

The experience is subjective, but we can make objective statements about experiences.

"Susan is in a lot of pain."
"Most people enjoy listening to music."

Exactly.

Very few statements are actually subjective. Even those that explicitly deal with personal experience are usually objectively true or false. "I am in pain" is not subjective; "pain is bad", on the other hand, is (or, rather, it's normative, which is really just a subcategory of subjective).

Tommy is laboring under the misapprehension that any statement that is processed by a brain is necessarily subjective.

That is not what "subjective" means.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Exactly.

Very few statements are actually subjective. Even those that explicitly deal with personal experience are usually objectively true or false. "I am in pain" is not subjective; "pain is bad", on the other hand, is (or, rather, it's normative, which is really just a subcategory of subjective).

Tommy is laboring under the misapprehension that any statement that is processed by a brain is necessarily subjective.

That is not what "subjective" means.

So there are 2 main categories of processes in brains; objective and subjective. So can there be a third one?

I like to learn, so for subjective what other subcategories are there?

 

[Nonpareil]

So there are 2 main categories of processes in brains; objective and subjective.

No.

"Objective" means "true from every frame of reference". "Subjective" means "not true from every frame of reference". Talking about processes in brains being subjective is nonsensical; these processes have objective reality. The ideas that these processes represent might be only subjectively true, but that's all.

"Blue is a nice color for interior decorating", as a process within the brain, has objective reality. Given enough understanding of the brain, we can trace this idea from conception as it travels through the neural processors. From every frame of reference, this thought exists. It is objective.

The actual statement, however, is only subjectively true, as "blue is nice" is a normative statement. It is not true from every frame of reference.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

No.

"Objective" means "true from every frame of reference". "Subjective" means "not true from every frame of reference". Talking about processes in brains being subjective is nonsensical; these processes have objective reality. The ideas that these processes represent might be only subjectively true, but that's all.

"Blue is a nice color for interior decorating", as a process within the brain, has objective reality. Given enough understanding of the brain, we can trace this idea from conception as it travels through the neural processors. From every frame of reference, this thought exists. It is objective.

The actual statement, however, is only subjectively true, as "blue is nice" is a normative statement. It is not true from every frame of reference.

I am not sure, but it seems you are either claiming metaphysical/ontological dualism or you are claiming a contradiction.
More later.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I am not sure, but it seems you are either claiming metaphysical/ontological dualism or you are claiming a contradiction.
More later.

No. He/she is just stating a fact.

Hans

 

[Nonpareil]

I am not sure, but it seems you are either claiming metaphysical/ontological dualism or you are claiming a contradiction.

Neither. The fact that you think such is a further indication that you do not understand what is being said.

And, in response to MRC_Hans' implied question, I have all the requisite boy bits.

 

[epepke]

Nearly everyone at some point comes up with the idea that the idea that one should have objective evidence (or whatever) isn't itself based on objective evidence, so ha, I win!

Including me.

Then I experienced puberty.

 

[MRC_Hans]

And, in response to MRC_Hans' implied question, I have all the requisite boy bits.

Not a question, really, just wanting to be unbiased. (And in fact quite a few of the posters here are females).

Hans

 

[Belz...]

Seems to me like the disagreement stems from the fact that some people here don't understand what "subjective" means.

 

[I Am The Scum]

So there are 2 main categories of processes in brains; objective and subjective. So can there be a third one?

I like to learn, so for subjective what other subcategories are there?

I might be able to clarify some issues, here.

It is not the case that existing objects can be divided into the categories of objective or subjective:

"This pizza is objective."
"That rock is subjective."

That's nonsense. The same goes for the processes/actions of existing things. The brain is an existing thing that goes through all kinds of processes, and none of them are subjective. That synapse is either firing, or it is not.

The objective/subjective distinction is more aptly applied to beliefs, opinions, experiences, and propositions. "2 + 2 = 5" is objectively false. The truth of the matter does not vary from one individual to another. "This pizza is delicious," does vary from person to person.

Both the above bolded statements are just that, statements. There is nothing inherent to the pizza that makes the second statement subjective, just as there is nothing about numbers that makes the other objective.

 

[turingtest]

I might be able to clarify some issues, here.

It is not the case that existing objects can be divided into the categories of objective or subjective:

"This pizza is objective."
"That rock is subjective."

That's nonsense. The same goes for the processes/actions of existing things. The brain is an existing thing that goes through all kinds of processes, and none of them are subjective. That synapse is either firing, or it is not.

The objective/subjective distinction is more aptly applied to beliefs, opinions, experiences, and propositions. "2 + 2 = 5" is objectively false. The truth of the matter does not vary from one individual to another. "This pizza is delicious," does vary from person to person.

Both the above bolded statements are just that, statements. There is nothing inherent to the pizza that makes the second statement subjective, just as there is nothing about numbers that makes the other objective.

Well, now, hold on...is that metaphysical/ontological dualism or you are claiming a contradiction? What label would you apply?
(Ha, I win!)

 

[Nonpareil]

Well, now, hold on...is that metaphysical/ontological dualism or you are claiming a contradiction? What label would you apply?
(Ha, I win!)

Oh god, which one do I shoot?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Oh god, which one do I shoot?

Objectively?

Both...

 

[tsig]

Oh god, which one do I shoot?

A sawed off 12 gauge loaded with 00 buck should get both of them with one shot, that's know as the principle of parsimony.