3 ms·

> Logic itself is subjective Not really, by your logic (heh) everything is subjective: including your own argument about logic being subjective (which in turn

> Logic itself is subjective Not really, by your logic (heh) everything is subjective: including your own argument about logic being subjective (which in turn uses logic).

ukj 3y ago
Sounds like you are on the path towards understanding that what we call “objectivity” is an inter-subjective construct.
- cscurmudgeon 3y ago
  I know you are being sarcastic, but this isn't a strange concept and this something philosophers have known for generations. Let us say you claim "Nothing is objective". Then it doesn't take a genius to assert that your claim "Nothing is objective" isn't objective.
  - ukj 3y ago
    I have no idea what your metric for "strangeness" is. Using similar reasoning we can also assert that "The speed of light is objective" is not an objective claim. And we can further assert that both the inner and outer statements are true without arriving at a contradiction. It doesn't take a genius, merely a very thick skin and a grasp of contextuality, to hold this perfectly reasonable conclusion in a society dominated by naive understanding of non-contradiction. Objectivity, being an unattainable philosophical ideal, it doesn't prevent us from using the term in more pragmatic/cultural/inter-subjective sense. A white lie - if you will - that only a determined pedant would scrutinize to such philosophical extent. Just as well, such overt pedantry deserves mockery and contempt.
calf 3y ago
This problem is why I strongly dislike social relativism arguments. It's sloppy reasoning and I can't make heads or tails of what they're asserting. I also disagree with the interviewee for this reason, I think his argument is also sloppy, he is conflating two different issues. (One would think I'm some kind of conservative; I'm a gay, Asian American leftist who happens to have a STEM background, and so I hate reading about "socially constructed" arguments--which is what this article is a variation of.)
- ukj 3y ago
  OK, so you dislike relativistic arguments. Relative to which objective standard for reasoning are you asserting that any given argument is "sloppy"? It's a turning point in one's life when we come to acknowle that we don't have to like the fact that relativism is true.
  - cscurmudgeon 3y ago
    For literal centuries we have known absolute epistemological relativism is childishly easy to self refute.
    - ukj 3y ago
      Maybe (spot the computational/monadic joke). In what objective system for evaluating proofs will you be presenting this “refutation”? This whole “we have known” smells of a bandwagon fallacy already. Who do you represent? I find it mildly ironic that I have to explain evaluation (and it’s dependency on a meta theory) on a forum full of computer scientists…
      - cscurmudgeon 3y ago
        Let’s think in nano baby steps: A. In what system are you presenting your argument here in your comment? Is that system objective or subjective. B. If subjective, then I declare your argument to be false for me. End of story. C. If objective, then congrats, you refuted yourself. I find it wildly ironic that you condescend and resort to veiled ad hominem on top of a Logic/Philo 101 fallacy known for literal centuries. Also, the statement “there is an objective system X” doesn’t imply “we fully know the system X” I represent scientists and logicians and philosophers that have known this for, once again, centuries. People call X background or classical logic. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-classical/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-classical/
        ukj 3y ago
        A. I am not presenting arguments. Only observations and inferences based on my understanding on the evidence. B. If you declare my “argument” subjective (and therefore false for you, but true for me) you agree with my overall claim Q.E.D C. Is it this one then? How would you prove this? D. It is mighty presumptuous of you to assume that I subscribe to classical logic; or even a consistent logic for that matter. Or that I subscribe to the same logic at different times of day. E. I am not impressed neither by your religion; nor by the writings of your prophets. Nullius in verba
GoblinSlayer 3y ago
Logic is subjective because it takes a lot of focused effort to align it with reality.
- cscurmudgeon 3y ago
  Here we go in circles. Is your statement about logic subjective or objective? Do you use logic to arrive at that conclusion?

> Logic itself is subjective Not really, by your logic (heh) everything is subjective: including your own argument about logic being subjective (which in turn uses logic).

ukj 3y ago

Sounds like you are on the path towards understanding that what we call “objectivity” is an inter-subjective construct.

cscurmudgeon 3y ago
I know you are being sarcastic, but this isn't a strange concept and this something philosophers have known for generations. Let us say you claim "Nothing is objective". Then it doesn't take a genius to assert that your claim "Nothing is objective" isn't objective.
- ukj 3y ago
  I have no idea what your metric for "strangeness" is. Using similar reasoning we can also assert that "The speed of light is objective" is not an objective claim. And we can further assert that both the inner and outer statements are true without arriving at a contradiction. It doesn't take a genius, merely a very thick skin and a grasp of contextuality, to hold this perfectly reasonable conclusion in a society dominated by naive understanding of non-contradiction. Objectivity, being an unattainable philosophical ideal, it doesn't prevent us from using the term in more pragmatic/cultural/inter-subjective sense. A white lie - if you will - that only a determined pedant would scrutinize to such philosophical extent. Just as well, such overt pedantry deserves mockery and contempt.

calf 3y ago

This problem is why I strongly dislike social relativism arguments. It's sloppy reasoning and I can't make heads or tails of what they're asserting. I also disagree with the interviewee for this reason, I think his argument is also sloppy, he is conflating two different issues. (One would think I'm some kind of conservative; I'm a gay, Asian American leftist who happens to have a STEM background, and so I hate reading about "socially constructed" arguments--which is what this article is a variation of.)

ukj 3y ago
OK, so you dislike relativistic arguments. Relative to which objective standard for reasoning are you asserting that any given argument is "sloppy"? It's a turning point in one's life when we come to acknowle that we don't have to like the fact that relativism is true.
- cscurmudgeon 3y ago
  For literal centuries we have known absolute epistemological relativism is childishly easy to self refute.
  - ukj 3y ago
    Maybe (spot the computational/monadic joke). In what objective system for evaluating proofs will you be presenting this “refutation”? This whole “we have known” smells of a bandwagon fallacy already. Who do you represent? I find it mildly ironic that I have to explain evaluation (and it’s dependency on a meta theory) on a forum full of computer scientists…
    - cscurmudgeon 3y ago
      Let’s think in nano baby steps: A. In what system are you presenting your argument here in your comment? Is that system objective or subjective. B. If subjective, then I declare your argument to be false for me. End of story. C. If objective, then congrats, you refuted yourself. I find it wildly ironic that you condescend and resort to veiled ad hominem on top of a Logic/Philo 101 fallacy known for literal centuries. Also, the statement “there is an objective system X” doesn’t imply “we fully know the system X” I represent scientists and logicians and philosophers that have known this for, once again, centuries. People call X background or classical logic. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-classical/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-classical/
      - ukj 3y ago
        A. I am not presenting arguments. Only observations and inferences based on my understanding on the evidence. B. If you declare my “argument” subjective (and therefore false for you, but true for me) you agree with my overall claim Q.E.D C. Is it this one then? How would you prove this? D. It is mighty presumptuous of you to assume that I subscribe to classical logic; or even a consistent logic for that matter. Or that I subscribe to the same logic at different times of day. E. I am not impressed neither by your religion; nor by the writings of your prophets. Nullius in verba

GoblinSlayer 3y ago

Logic is subjective because it takes a lot of focused effort to align it with reality.

cscurmudgeon 3y ago
Here we go in circles. Is your statement about logic subjective or objective? Do you use logic to arrive at that conclusion?