5 ms·
>How could one study it objectively? Here's a fix, and it comes from within: Give up the ideal of objectivity. Objectivity doesn't exist. I see this fallacy a
by PilateDeGuerre 13y ago
>How could one study it objectively?
Here's a fix, and it comes from within: Give up the ideal of objectivity. Objectivity doesn't exist.
I see this fallacy all the time from hackers. We are not merely rational creatures we are also feeling creatures. Embrace it.
- philwelch 13y agoI feel that you're wrong about that.
- quinnchr 13y agoIf you think their is such a thing as objective truth in this world you must be some sort of postmodern miracle.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- telephonetemp 13y agoThere is mathematics and physics, at least. A lot of arguing can be, and has been, had here but it's largely arguing about definitions; you cannot deny that they allow you to obtain the "truth" in the sense that that truth can be used to predict and affect what happens in the real world as far as your senses can best tell you. There's no arguing away fire or public key encryption.
- quinnchr 13y agoYes all of those things exist and can make predictions about "reality," but that doesn't mean reality exists outside of my own experience. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology_(philosophy) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology_(philosophy)
- telephonetemp 13y ago>that doesn't mean reality exists outside of my own experience. I am aware of phenomenology and I've read some Merleau-Ponty. To my taste, however, the situation where an objective/"objective" scientific truth makes consistent predictions about my sensory experiences that suggest a physical outside world and another where that truth makes consistent predictions about the outside world itself, which in turn causes the sensory experiences, don't seem different in a meaningful way. Why make that distinction?
- quinnchr 13y agoI mean yeah if you don't care about understanding the nature of existence, the distinction doesn't matter. If all you're concerned with is making useful predictions, there is no point in quibbling about the subjectivity of experience. My point is simply that just because the scientific method leads to useful predictions that doesn't make it objective truth nor does it invalidate the importance of subjective experience.
- telephonetemp 13y ago>if you don't care about understanding the nature of existence, the distinction doesn't matter Okay, I think I understand your position now. (Though I'm not sure if the lack of belief in objective truth is as common as you claim.) Sorry be so persistent but I have to ask: suppose you do care about the nature of existence; how do you tell if it's one or the other or which one is more likely?
- quinnchr 13y agoI'm not sure how to answer that. What is the purpose of determining which one is more likely? I don't think that's a question that's possible to answer nor one that reveals anything about the nature of existence.
- nileshtrivedi 13y agoI think you missed his sarcasm. He feels that objective truth exists. :) BTW, I have found Yudkowsky's "The Simple Truth" an effective argument against those claim that objective truth doesn't exist. If you walk in the way of a speeding train, you will die irrespective of your beliefs. Beliefs don't alter the reality. http://yudkowsky.net/rational/the-simple-truth/ http://yudkowsky.net/rational/the-simple-truth/
- vdaniuk 13y agoThats a good argument and may be generalized by quoting George Edward Box "Remember that all models are wrong; the practical question is how wrong do they have to be to not be useful."
- Double_Cast 13y agoI occasionally reread Isaac Asimov's The Relativity of Wrong. While Yudkowsky's The Simple Truth is more rigorous, I find the brevity of Asimov's essay more refreshing. Another perennial favorite of mine is George Orwell's Politics and the English Language. http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm
- vdaniuk 13y agoGreat links, thanks.
- quinnchr 13y agoHmmm... yes let's disregard the last century of philosophical thought and the postmodernism movement as a whole because the dude who write's Harry Potter fan fic wrote a cute story. How would you convince a Solipsist that there is an objective truth?
- philwelch 13y agoConsidering that everyone is a solipsist these days, that's an interesting problem but it's not a philosophical problem. If someone else is a solipsist I know from experience that they're wrong, and I'm not a solipsist.
- emil0r 13y agoIs that statement objective or subjective?
- telephonetemp 13y agoThere's a good deal of middle ground between the self-evident >We are not merely rational creatures we are also feeling creatures and a thought-terminating cliche like >Objectivity doesn't exist. The latter doesn't seem like a helpful response to someone who is apparently asking for scientific evidence for long working hours and/or overtime doing harm to you. If anything, knowing what science says on the matter is emotionally important as it could either (if the possibility of permanent harm is limited) provide some relief to or (otherwise) justify the indignation of a person currently doing overtime and unhappy about it (and hopefully lead to action on their part). Both scenarios seem desirable to me. Edit: Could you explain the downvotes? In case it sounded dismissive I changed "thought-stopper" to the more formal "thought-terminating cliche" above and added the ellipses for clarity.
- barry-cotter 13y agoYou pissed off those who are highly invested in either side without provoking any support from the middle; your rewording is no less offensive, especially with the pointer to the pre-edit version, and your usage of parentheses necessitates an above average working memory or rereading.
- telephonetemp 13y agoThanks for your insight. I'm genuinely surprised if I did come off as being against both sides. I thought my comment was obviously pro-rationalist (my reasoning being that a deliberately rational person would recognize the importance of one's emotional state and use rational thought to improve it). I may have inadvertently stumbled upon a trolling strategy: in what appears to be a binary choice don't be recognizably for either. I was also apparently too sleepy to call parentheses by their name.
- gruseom 13y agoI'm in favor of what comes from within, but it's important not just to repeat what one already believes.