7
From Oxford English Dictionary:
objective
• adjective 2. not dependent on the mind for existencedependent
• adjective 3. (dependent on) unable to do without.
From a less credible source, dictionary.com:
objective
• adjective 8. of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.
If we use dictionaries, then apparently, it is impossible to have any kind of objective knowledge, because our knowledge cannot exist without our mind.
equitypeteynothing is indapendant from perspective in one way or another.
are you saying we can't have real knowledge of anything because we don't know if our perspective is correct?although would you consider scientific equipment indapendant from perspective or because it was made by a man with a perspective it also takes the perspective of the man that uses it?
That is a problem I am trying to bring up in this thread.
so i have known what you mean from the start :Dwhat i'm trying to convey is that from our one perspective whether right or wrong is still tested objectivly.
so our knowledge is objective from our perspective.shall we all curl up and die because all we know may not be as we know it. ;D
7
Replying to #42
Maybe what we know is true, maybe what we know is not true, that is not important. The question is can we ever get to the objective knowledge.
I think the difference between our views is that there are two definitions of the word objective. One is that it describes something that is not biased. Another definition is that it describes something that is independent of the mind (knower of knowledge).
709zzy, in both your examples you show the problems with subjective experimentation. Science relies on objective experimentation. It does not rely on just one person's single view. Basically, what you are saying is that if there are two people, one on a train looking at a platform and one on the platform looking at the train. The one looking out at the platform as the train moves off might deduce that the platform is moving backwards, whereas the one on the platform would deduce that the train is moving off. This is a once off assumption. Both parties would now have to test their idea and the person who thought the platform was moving backwards would be proven wrong.
The reason science remains objective is that it doesn't rely on one person's mind to gather knowledge, but brings a collection of people's minds and experiments together under a set of rules which removes any subjectivity.
E
how can we ever have knowledge independent from our minds :o
it just seems a crazy idea but we can't tell the future and we have had massive discoveries that have completely changed our understanding already so why can't we have ones that change what we know further.
the wonderful thing about knowledge is it only gets bigger and better.
who knows we cold be visited by aliens that have another perspective ;)
Replying to #44
i'm under the understanding that he ment we as the human race is one of the men thus not having a different perspective of what we can see, test and know.
tl;dr again, so I'm just gonna go ahead and call you all wrong.
709zzyWe are not all powerful, we can't learn things about the world without doing any kind of experiment.
An experiment is a procedure performed to obtain data to verify a hypothesis. We don't learn about the world solely through this method, otherwise chaos would reign in society as people attempt to "learn" about what happens if they do something.
709zzyWithout having the ability of seeing whats really there, the experiments we do affect the results we get. And those results are no longer objective representations of what really is there. Just like how you admitted yourself, we can calculate the velocity PERCEIVED by by each person. But, there is no way for us to tell which of those two PERCEIVED velocities is more "correct". To make a measurement in this case, the difference in results is due to how the two men perceived the event.
Here is the problem. The results of BOTH observers are valid. One is not more "correct" than the other.
And who said we "can't see what's really there"? I think you're really overestimating relativity.
equitypeteyand it's all bollocks anyway because your not a physics professor nor is anyone on here
Oh, I dunno about that...
709zzyIf you think the example I used is all bollocks just because I am not a physics professor, I am fine with it. I am just a bit surprised that this came out a person who thinks "if light was traveling from a moving object it would travel at the speed of light plus the the speed of the object."
It's perfectly understandable for someone who hasn't studied relativity to think that. And by the way, condescension negates objectivity ;)
equitypeteywe only have the one perspective and it sill does not effect the objectivity, the objectivity would only be affected if we had both perspectives and ignored one.
That's a good way of putting things.
PaddetteSorry to have to quote the exact definitions of 'Objective', but your argument was becoming entangled, and it detracted from what objectivity is, not what you think it is.Also, subjectivity has pretty much no basis in the whole thing. If two people present a thesis on the same subject, but one is, to the people that are reviewing them, more right than the other. If they choose A over B, but author of B is subjective, it has no stand on whether or not the choice of the people whom chose A over B was objective or not.My two cents. You don't need numbers to prove objectivity.
As is this.
equitypeteynothing is indapendant from perspective in one way or another.
are you saying we can't have real knowledge of anything because we don't know if our perspective is correct?
It was considered "knowledge" that the Earth was flat a few centuries ago. Just because we know that's not true now, doesn't mean it wasn't true for people back then. In other words, knowledge is right until proven wrong and not before.
equitypeteyalthough would you consider scientific equipment indapendant from perspective or because it was made by a man with a perspective it also takes the perspective of the man that uses it?
Equipment has no perspective or bias, but the reference frame used for measurements can still affect results.
709zzy · #41If we use dictionaries, then apparently, it is impossible to have any kind of objective knowledge, because our knowledge cannot exist without our mind.
Knowledge, as a human-defined concept, cannot exist without humans. That is true. However, that doesn't mean objective knowledge is impossible. As I said earlier, the fact that a carton of milk costs x amount of money is not determined by one's perspective or frame of reference. Subjectivity may determine whether or not one sees the milk as cheap or expensive, but that's all. Other human-defined facts (other than units of measurement of time, space and mass) are also unaffected by relativity.
tehuber1337tl;dr again, so I'm just gonna go ahead and call you all wrong.An experiment is a procedure performed to obtain data to verify a hypothesis. We don't learn about the world solely through this method, otherwise chaos would reign in society as people attempt to "learn" about what happens if they do something.Here is the problem. The results of BOTH observers are valid. One is not more "correct" than the other.
Back in that post, I was referring to scientific knowledge. I didn't mean to let it be a statement about knowledge in general.
I never disagreed that one is not more "correct" than the other. Just like I said, "there is no way for us to tell which of those two PERCEIVED velocities is more 'correct' ", because they are both correct to their corresponding observer.
Replying to #46
We may be able to see what's really there without realizing it ourselves. It is possible for us to have the "correct version" of the knowledge about something at some point in time. But do you think we can ever know that we know the "correct version"?
Replying to #46
Yes, I stepped a bit too far on that one.
Replying to #46
Please see post #38, #40 and #42 for different meanings of the word "objective". When I used the word "objective" in objective knowledge, I was using it to describe something that is " not dependent on the mind for existence"
Replying to #47
As I said, since objectivity and knowledge are human-defined concepts, they cannot exist without humans. If this is the definition you intended from the beginning, then there was never much to discuss here, and everything else is utterly irrelevant.
See also:
EquivocationReplying to #48
In post #9, I clearly referred to objective knowledge as "absolute truth" (so excluding the other definitions altogether). I never used any reference to define the word at that time (such as using a dictionary). The reason that I didn't do that is because I myself was not sure of the meaning of the word. If you reread some of the posts you can easily tell that people denied the definition which I uses. You may say that I mislead myself into thinking that there is some kind of debate to be had, but I didn't intend to mislead anyone. However, If you look at the definition that I am using right now, it pretty much only applies when its discussed with respect to knower and knowledge, so it was meant to be used together with the word knowledge in that specific sense. You can't blame other people for using a definition that is meant to be used with the issue, especially since I already specified what I meant by it in the beginning. It's not like I am playing with words to make the meaning unclear. You can say that I was just stating the obvious without realizing that myself, but it is not my problem that others want to argue against that which is obvious. Plus, since people do want to argue against that which is obvious, maybe it is not so obvious like you described.
Now you're just getting into semantics.So, is there anything else to discuss or are we done here?
H
In this thread, I see two people failing Physics...
And I also declare tehuber1337 as the winner of this thread.
Good fucking night!
PS: Equitypetey, just so you know, speed of light doesn't work exactly like you think it does. I'm referring to your blunder right here:
equitypeteyits not comparing apples and oranges at all, Einstein used a very similar explanation i think if i recall when he thew his wet sock after sailing with his son (although my memory is vague) but the principle was that if light was traveling from a moving object it would travel it the speed of light plus the the speed of the object.
yeah i know :-[ i was getting confused with moving objects but that's why i said it's all bollocks because we were starting to debate physics when the subject matter is objectivity within scientific knowledge.
.
7
tehuber1337 · #50Now you're just getting into semantics.So, is there anything else to discuss or are we done here?
No, like I said in post #48, other people got me into semantics. And you are just making false accusations.
Hypr · #51In this thread, I see two people failing Physics...And I also declare tehuber1337 as the winner of this thread.Good fucking night!PS: Equitypetey, just so you know, speed of light doesn't work exactly like you think it does. I'm referring to your blunder right here:
In this thread, I see two people who come into a debate saying things without backing up their words.
In exactly what did tehuber win? He showed that I have started a debate on something obvious, I don't disagree with that. But like I said before, it is not my problem that people want to argue against that which is obvious.
709zzyNo, other people got me into semantics. And you are just making false accusations.
I'll take that as a "yes, we're done". Good day to you, sir.
Replying to #54
Feel free to interpret what other people say.
well seeing as there was no intention of debate or discussion and it is not looking as it's every going to go that way as 709zzy is apparently the master of all un known knowledge and arguing him is futile this might as well be locked.LOCKED
