Truth is Objective, prove me Wrong. (Also recommend me some books about/related to Truth)

Truth is subjective. Prove me wrong.

You are wrong.
To me this constitutes a proof.

That depends on the wordgame we're playing. You need to define "truth" and "objective" before we can agree on anything

>he ask the opinions of plebs
Would you also ask pigs and cows about their views?

nice try peterstein
Truth == accurate verbal representation of reality
Objective == no personal bias

Truth is objective. However I am a subject unable to know it.

Is accurate verbal representation of reality even possible? It calls to mind the allegory of the cave.

"accurate verbal representation of reality"
again that could mean anything. Ultimately you rely upon the chemicals to tell you that they are chemicals

And did you recognize what people call truth just then? Or did you catch a notion of its shadow. If you say the former, you’re being untruthful. If you say the latter you’re ignoring that there are necessary paths we take as humans to arrive at this “truth”.

At a more fundamental level, you and I both asserted that truth was objective, and subjective, respectively. Does this mean that truth is also black and white? Or relative and absolute? If truth is solely absolute then surely you agree that statements containing relative truths are akin to a dying thing: its body still moves and breaths: metabolic processes are still in motion, yet, it is ultimately on its way out. On the other hand, why can’t we also say that truth is soley reletive and constantly changing? There are three prevailing theories of truth, but, as Goethe writes: “All theory, dear friend, is grey, but the golden tree of life springs forever green.”

Is truth then whatever we decide to label it? Are truth and beauty just artifacts of the evolved brain’s experience? What is the truth?

>not adaequatio rei et intellectus
cringe

"Truth is subjective" is an objective truth claim.

Relativists btfo

Fallacy of composition. Nice effortpost though.

>Ultimately you rely upon the chemicals to tell you that they are chemicals
I'm not sure what is the issue here.
Would God, spirits or a soul be more trustworthy? Couldn't they lie?

This façade is only possible because we have imperfect senses that are prone to misunderstand stimuli, so much so that it can be exploited by those whose intention is to fool us for whatever purpose they may have.

If he entered the barn he would know the truth. Perception is not reality. Being fooled does not result in "changing reality". It results, and is a result of, being torn apart from reality.

>Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life
When it is properly understood what we mean when we say "God", and what a "lie" is, it becomes clear that to ascribe a lie to God is a logical absurdity.
If you think of God as some Zeus character, sure, why not.

>you have to trust god, because he said that he is the truth

Attached: socratesMan2.png (1000x1500, 621K)

There is intelligence on the other side

Attached: IMG_20190721_154451.jpg (1440x2560, 853K)

>the only way i can justify my argument is by using violence to force others to agree

oh shiet nigga u ugly

>Helios talks about how bright the sun is
>wtf are we just supposed to trust this guy that the sun is bright just cause it says it in some myth

No you can test it.

Yes, Socratesman is a very fearful person. I wouldn't mess with him.

>Truth is Objective
>Being fooled does not result in "changing reality".
So it depends on what you mean by "truth" as barn facades refers to questions of "justified true belief" which for most purposes can be read as "truth".

It doesn't matter because truth isn't a worthwhile pursuit in the first place, prove me wrong.

How could you know if it is worthwhile or not if you don't know the truth?

I know the truth that truth isn't worthwhile

>if you don't know the truth
So here we have a clear case of truth as justified true belief.

it depends on what kind of truth you’re talking about
scientific truth - yes
philosophical truth - not really

Science cannot find truth but is a way of speaking true

No it isn't

Brainlet

you have never heard of the concept of scientific truth?
as i’ve said, you need to eloborate on what kind of truth you mean (define your terms), truth is a very wide concept, and it’s often misused

an excellent argument user

But that's just scientism.

science operates a different concept of truth than philosophy, i’m not saying that it makes philosophy somehow inferior to science

One of the key tenets of science is the concept of "falsifiability". Similarly, when looking for relations using statistics, one can only ever disprove the null hypothesis, one does not prove anything one way or the other. This is how science speaks true, it's very good at showing and saying what isn't true but not getting at real world truths. See Canguilhem "On the Normal and the Pathological".

you’re overgeneralising
are you implying that science doesn’t provide any “real” world truths
>falsifiability
actually, it’s kind of a myth (of popular science), it doesn’t apply to every scientific theory
4gravitons.com/2019/04/19/the-black-box-theory-of-everything/ (about popular image of science)
>"On the Normal and the Pathological
can’t you summarise it yourself?
eh, it’s always the same argument on /lit
read x and y, as if you really thought sb will read what you recommended just because of an internet discussion

It is. Think harder and deeper. Harder and deeper. The request your girlfriend always makes of you.

That link has literally nothing to do with my argument. You're a lot stupider than you realise. Do the work, read the (short) papers, then come back. He's arguing about a very specific thing, the concept of the "black box" i.e. the substance/mechanics of a thing do not matter if the thing can be reduced to inputs and outputs.

You are a good poster and I like you.

my main point was that you’re overgeneralising, the part about falsifiability was just an addition
and answer the question
>are you implying that science doesn’t provide any “real” world truths?
and there’s literally no difference between scientific and philosophical truth?

>ask everybody if the earth is flat in 2000 bc
>51% or more answer yes
>it's literally settled

>the part about falsifiability was just an addition
From who? You've done that thing certain kinds of (*cough* stupid *cough*) people do which is latch onto a keyword without understanding the substance of what is being said, "look, they also used the word falsifiability!".
>>are you implying that science doesn’t provide any “real” world truths?
>and there’s literally no difference between scientific and philosophical truth?
You're giving me no context to how you're wanting those words to come across duder. I need more than you repeating yourself and using air quotes, because you clearly think something is there. If that's too much, then I'll answer the first question with a "no, I am outright stating it", and the second with a "not enough information/way too vague".

They didn't have MRIs in 2000 bc so those were not objective answers. Truth begins with the invention of brain scanning.

That’s what he just said brainlet

Nope.

Attached: Glasses.jpg (650x429, 54K)

the context is your reply to which was supposed to counter the claim that science and philosophy operate different concepts of truth
what’s so hard about it

(no, i added the part about falsifiability, because i think it’s interesting how the popular image of science differes from “actual” science, and falsifiability is one of the most widely repeated things)

+ i wanted to disprove
>This is how science speaks true, it's very good at showing and saying what isn't true but not getting at real world truths
you used falsifiability as an example

>(no, i added the part about falsifiability, because i think it’s interesting how the popular image of science differes from “actual” science, and falsifiability is one of the most widely repeated things)
Makes no sense m80. You're talking around in circles about this, you were mistaken on what the article you posted said: it doesn't refer to falsifiability per se, rather that because a "theory" is falsifiable that that is enough. It doesn't say much more than that. You've added nothing but pointing.
>which was supposed to counter the claim that science and philosophy operate different concepts of truth
Science does not deal with truths, it deals with things which are not true. Read the paper.

so here’s a paper for you
researchgate.net/publication/331674369_The_myth_of_falsifiability_in_the_assessment_of_scientific_theories
which makes your
>it deals with things which are not true.
wrong

>0 citations
>author is shit
>mischaracterises "Popperian falsifiability" and name drops Sokal...
>"...that must be treat with statistical methods..." if not using falsifiability [still a poor point due to problem of induction t. Hume]
>Similarly, when looking for relations using statistics, one can only ever disprove the null hypothesis, one does not prove anything one way or the other.
The point still stands as originally stated even with you frantically using shit google fu and seeing if something might stick. You've even continued to do your "looky I can see key word" bullshit, but with this fucking back and forth now.

Try to make an interesting contribution in your next post or I'm going to leave off replying m80. Think the shit through first.

so another article jmcgowan.com/Myth.pdf
just google “the myth of falsifiability” and you will get plenty of articles
statistics doesn’t constitute the whole science
you provided two examples to justify your claim, and i discredited one of them, idk why it seems to you that i’m “latching onto a keyword without understanding the substance of what is being said”
so your stance is that there’s no difference between scientific and philosophical truths, and you haven’t provided good arguments yet (don’t you know that science and philosophy work differently, using different methods?)

why don’t you just answer
>>are you implying that science doesn’t provide any “real” world truths?
>and there’s literally no difference between scientific and philosophical truth?
(+your paper is a over 200-page book, a bit too long for a Yea Forums discussion)

>John F. McGowan is a researcher and engineer at NASA Ames Research Center. He has worked on the design of a digital video system for the proposed Mars Airplane missions.
Wow.

based user, keep defeating these possible dogmatists

>(+your paper is a over 200-page book, a bit too long for a Yea Forums discussion)
Reminder that these people post on a literature board.

Truth is objective, because if it wasn't it wouldn't be truth. Subjective shit is an opinion. Truth is fact, thus is not subject to opinionation or subjective interpretation.

If there was some truth that wasn't objectively provable, like ghosts or shit, then that wouldn't be truth because it doesn't have objective value. Despite those statements being true, in this sense, as they have no quantifiable benefit/influence upon reality, then they stop being truth. Meaning that ghosts could exist for billions of years, until those ghosts has a measurable, replicable, and independently verifiable influence upon reality, then it doesn't function as truth, it functions as any other subjective belief like a religious, idealistic, or moral belief.

The scientific method proves what is true and what is false, at least to a much higher degree of leigitmacy than any other method. If your statement cannot be proven explicitly via the scientific method, then your statement is not the truth. Regardless of how valid or reasonable it may be, if you can't prove it with hard science, it's not truth. It's a conjecture, and argument, but until it is verified in an unquestionable manner it does not qualify as truth.

Any sort of subjective bullshit, feelings, or human experience is also bullshit. The subjective human experience is no more meaningful or significant than the subjective experience of a bullet traveling through a human's skull. Regardless of what the bullet thinks or feels, the only legitimate and consequential aspects of the bullet are the effects on the physical world as described by ballistics and other sciences.

If your statement is valid, if your statement is true, prove your statement in the same sense that every other aspect of the physical world can be proven. The human, the human psychological experience, is no less a hard, quantifiable aspect of reality than any rock or any stick, any computer program, anything else that exists. To think otherwise is delusional humanistic self-worship. You're not different or special, you're just an animal. Get your dicks out of your own asses because you're literally assfucking your species to death with this extreme a degree of egotism.

Attached: 3rdeye.jpg (623x800, 75K)

nathanoseroff.com/files/papers/popperdemarcation.pdf
another one
(why don’t you refer to the article itself)

if you mean my linguistic errors, i’m not a native speaker
or do you seriously expect that i will read a book just to have a discussion with you, because you can’t summarise it yourself?

Does it matter? You can't gain knowledge that isn't filtered through your subjective perception, so regardless of wether there is an objective reality, your understanding and perception of it will always, necessarily, be subjective anyway.

Even a basic thing like this post I'm writing right now will, where I have a very clear idea of the concept I try to communicate, will necessarily not be understood in exactly the same by you as I understand it or as another user reading it may understand it. Not only will it all be filtered through your own subjective memories, experiences and pre-exisiting knowledge, but, because I'm not there in person to explain this to you, you will also have to give the post context by assigning me an identity which colors how you interpret what I'm saying. What this means is, effectively, that whatever you read is not the same thing that the author wrote. The words are the same, but what they mean is unique to you.

objective doesnt mean “not relative,” otherwise nice bait

We have the notion of "transcendental truth" and we have "justified true beliefs".

Truth encompasses both of them and they are not mutually exclusive. If you believe the Earth is flat you are further away from than you would should you recognize that it is actually approximately spherical. It is true, and objectively true, that the Earth is not flat, and that it is approximately spherical.

Subjective perception doesn't allow one to see this, but reason and experiment do. From the top of a mountain we can see only the up to the horizon from 360 different angles. We can't see the shape of the Earth, and we would be objectively wrong if we claimed that it had any shape other than approximately spherical.

A "justified true belief" is part of Truth. There are also logical truths, mathematical truths and other kinds of truths, but they all refer to "What Is". What actually is -- what is real, true and recognizable, be it through reason or verification. There are things that ARE NOT, and thence they are False and do not resemble Truth. The idea, for example. of a four-sided triangle is linguistically, mathematically and logically impossible, and thus is NOT TRUE.

We also have transcendental truths which are beyond physical senses and pertain to the realm of metaphysics and mysticism and are the object of meditation of religion and philosophy, but can also be tackled by means of geometry. These can be recognized through numerous practices and verified through insightful feeling.

There ARE subjective truths. Imagine a bar of chocolate containing 85% cocoa in its composition.The OBJECTIVE FACT, and thus INCONSTETABLE TRUTH, about this piece of chocolate is that it has approximately 85% cocoa in its composition. The subjective truth is whether or not it is tasty. Some may find it too bitter.

Objective truth is not in the domain of subjective taste. To say that Truth is subject is to reduce facts to subjectivity. I can believe something about a certain hiistorical fact and so can you because we are both correct in our own reality tunnels. Hell, we can even make something up and then believe in it, because truth is subjective right? It will be TRUE, then, if I believe in it?

You can't sincerely believe in that.

It is simple. TRUTH is FACT. It can be ETERNAL (transcendental, metaphysical, mathematical) or TEMPORARY (wordly, historical), but what differs truth from falsehood is simply whether something IS or IS NOT.

Do I really have to keep going? This is incredibly self evident, and to deny otherwise is to cynically stretch the definition of the word (Truth) and to indulge in Nihilism.

I enjoyed your post.
>Do I really have to keep going?
So long as you agree that there are more things in heaven and hell then I'm happy.

Truth is subjective interpretations (verbal representations) of objective reality
Scientific truth is subjective interpretations of objective reality
There's a difference between reality and verbal interpretations of reality
Truth is subjective interpretations (verbal representations) of objective reality
There's a difference between reality and verbal interpretations of reality
>It is simple. TRUTH is FACT
Define 'fact', that's an iffy word. Do you mean phenomenon or its interpretation? Because verbal interpretations are not reality they describe

>define fact
The degree to which we can approximate our interpretation of phenomena to the actuality of the phenomena themselves is the degree to which we can gain access to Truth. Facts are phenomenas. Correct interpretation of facts is incremental acquisition of Truth.

Thank you for the linguistic filter. It further helps to make my thinking more precise.

>Truth is Objective

How did you come to know this?

which truth tho?
objective truth or subjective truth?

The distinction doesn't matter. Knowledge of the world we perceive is all there is to care about. Questions concerning the validity of knowledge discerned from sense data are valid if, and only if the information drawn causes misbehavior - ie. a misalignment with reality.

So far, I have yet to see this happen. Although senses have their quirks - optical, auditory illusions, the visible spectrum, etc. - these aren't nearly large enough discrepancies to justify calling into question the only (seemingly) workable tool we have in the world.

Attached: 1562115541829.png (1950x1110, 2.3M)

Just because we cannot realize truth does not mean it does not exist. Symbolism is how we work with the truth without perceiving it, kind of like using a variable in mathematics. In a way every single word is just a placeholder for things beyond our perception yet still workable, just as the true nature of things is beyond our perception yet we can still interact with them.

>He believes science has objectively proven things
If you think we actually have anything 100% figured out about the nature of our reality, compared to what humanity will know thousands of years from now, you are an idiot

Paradise Lost is good for phenomena vs. nomenan

Jesus is truth and order (logos), he's the schema you've always been looking for. He's the neuronal network to develop.

Attached: screenshot-2016-12-31-at-8-01-49-am.png (749x302, 109K)

>Correct interpretation of facts
How do you know what a correct interpretation is? You can't trust your perception of the world, because you might be insane or otherwise interpret what you percieve in an incorrect way. Neither can you trust the words of others to verify or debunk what you believe you percieve, because they too may be insane or they may even just be cruel and lie to you because it pleases them to do so. Neither can you trust your reason to filter truth from lies, because reason cannot create knowledge, it can only deduce based on what you have previously percieved.

There's no truly objective truth, there's only most likely truth.

No absolute truth exists because you never have full knowledge of the underlying facts to interpret. Using this statement for black and white 'hence, all truth is subjective' is not wise either though, as we can reliably work with degrees of certainty.