Scarletfox Posted October 16, 2020 Report Share Posted October 16, 2020 On 10/14/2020 at 11:11 PM, Scout_Fox said: *facepalm* *double facepalm* *triple facepalm* *sigh* YES! The funniest! Well, how would we verify it beyond using our subjective senses, logic, or interpretation? So then right back at you , is it true that it is impossible to know objective truth? If you're asking for my opinion, I believe that it is possible to know objective truth. And then, @Ixthos, you articulate much better than I, and I approve of your reasoning for the points brought up! I'm super busy right now, but I'll try to participate as much as I can when I have time 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orlion Blight Posted October 16, 2020 Report Share Posted October 16, 2020 @Scout_Fox I should amend my single contribution to clarify: objective does not mean ONLY nomnea, Absolute, thethinginitself,etc. Those would certainly be objective, but not the only objective measure (i.e. utilitarianism is an objective standard of morality even though its measure, "what causes the most pleasure", is dynamic and changes based on time, culture and framing). Would Kant disagree with me? The original statement possibly, but he also never stated that nomnea was the only objective standard. Simply that what we can know objectively would be through our senses and rationale, or phenomena. So Kant would say that there are limits to what we can know and how we know it, and by reflecting on those limits we would have an objective understanding of what we do know. Which is connected to, but isn't necessarily, truth. As near as I can tell, only statements can have truth values. So "the truth" might be better framed as "what makes a statement true or false" and there are various methods for that, and the most common interpretation that folks intuitively hold is that the truth of a statement is dependent on how well it matches facts it's describing. So, this complicates matter because 1) facts don't have truth values, facts are facts. 2) a statement's meaning could be hidden in cultural maskings, such that statements like "it's raining cats and dogs" can be considered true. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scout_Fox Posted October 17, 2020 Report Share Posted October 17, 2020 @Orlion the Platypus Ah for sure, makes more sense than your first post 6 hours ago, Scarletfox said: If you're asking for my opinion, I believe that it is possible to know objective truth. And then, @Ixthos, you articulate much better than I, and I approve of your reasoning for the points brought up! I'm super busy right now, but I'll try to participate as much as I can when I have time No worries! @Ixthos brought up some very good points you're right so if you fit about there then I can see what you were saying better. Nice discussing with y'all! Props for keeping it chill too, lot more productive and interesting when everyone's sharing ideas respectfully rather than having it be a screaming match 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarletfox Posted October 18, 2020 Report Share Posted October 18, 2020 On 10/14/2020 at 2:13 PM, Truthless of Shinovar said: In my opinion, yes. It receives the most scrutiny, people have been studying it for millenniums, and generally across all civilizations (now at least), science is regarded as fact. We reached the conclusion that it is factual by experimenting and testing over and over and over and over again, looking for the little details, sequences, anomalies that make up existence. We compare and contrast, try to catch nature by cross examination, all using very logical and straight-forward methods; namely, the scientific method. On 10/14/2020 at 3:21 PM, Scarletfox said: Why do we use the scientific method? Why is it good? I was hoping to use socratic format to show you this, but life is busy, so I'll go ahead and just explain it. Basically, the only reason we use science is because we've decided through logic and reasoning that the scientific method (a form of reasoning itself) is a fairly valid way to verify truth. So if the scientific method is a form of reasoning, then reason and logic is the most factual thing to mankind, not science. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Truthless of Shinovar Posted October 18, 2020 Report Share Posted October 18, 2020 Just now, Scarletfox said: I was hoping to use socratic format to show you this, but life is busy, so I'll go ahead and just explain it. Basically, the only reason we use science is because we've decided through logic and reasoning that the scientific method (a form of reasoning itself) is a fairly valid way to verify truth. So if the scientific method is a form of reasoning, then reason and logic is the most factual thing to mankind, not science. Ack! A debate I forgot to respond to! Sorry, I’ll try and post my replies to your previous questions pretty soon, but the last couple of days have been pretty busy and felt lazy on the shard (read: I didn’t want to get a headache trying to combat you awesome debate skills and instead just wanted to post *wins*) But as to what you just said, yeah, that makes sense. Logic is straightforward and unchanging. My point in using the scientific method was to demonstrate that a lot of what we consider truth stems from a logical process. Thanks for answering your own question for me 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.