RE: Please do not conflate FACT and OPINION
Now before you dismiss me as "a crack pot", I would like to point out that I do believe "a broad consensus" is a very good standard for "truth".
So when the broad consensus of opinion was that the sun moved around the earth, it would then make it true?
And even Karl Popper admits, when pressed, that science isn't based on "objectivity" but rather on "a broad consensus" of "well qualified individuals", which in a lot of ways is nearly functionally identical,
'Appeal to authority' is a logical fallacy.
Objectivity - Utterly free of and existing independently from any possible subjective feelings, opinions and/or any prejudice; indisputable and seen identically by all possible observers; not subject to variation, change or interpretation.
so.... 1+1 = 2?
Is this objectively true?
If not , how so?
If so, then it proves that objective truth does, in fact, exist.
Objectivity Promotes Demonization,
Objectivity promotes nothing.
It has no consciousnesses with which to do anything.
It can do nothing except be.
The manipulation of objective facts by people, can promote demonetization.
I believe in objectivity. I also believe that humans are not perfect. We don't know everything. Therefore, we don't understand objectivity completely. But we attempt to. Yes, we make mistakes. We fall into subjectivity. We can be blind. But out failure to master objectivity does not prove it does not exist any more than people can prove that there is no god, no higher power. I'm not going to say that people have to believe in objectivity or in Jesus or whatever. The meaning to life involves freewill. But if there is no objectivity, then anything goes. I mean anything. It is a bottomless pit.
it's not a belief system.
No belief is required to add 1+1
Einstein makes it clear that motion is relative to the observer.
Ptolemy's model is not "wrong", it simply uses a different reference point.
It would be like printing a map with East at the top instead of North.
It doesn't change the objective reality that the sun doesn't move around the earth.
You can conceptualize it in as many different ways as you like...
....the sun still doesn't revolves around the earth.
I'm all for intellectual exercises - but when denial of reality is necessary to continue the argument, it becomes moot, and enters the world of postmodernist delusions of reality.
imo.
The Earth and the Sun move relative to one another.
Which one moves around the other is a matter of perspective.
If you're searching for an example of an "objective fact" you're going to need to keep searching.
(1) If a person on a moving train bounces a ping-pong-ball on a table, the ball appears to move straight up and down.
(2) If a person standing along side the tracks and was watching the moving train could see the bouncing ping-pong-ball, it would appear to be moving in a parabolic wave pattern.
Which one of these observations is "objective fact"?
Have you ever heard of the scientific term "relativity"?
.....have you ever heard the term 'so far up your own intellectual arse, you can't see the wood for ego...baaah.
Please make your axioms explicit, enumerate your premises, and present an orderly and logically sound argument.
It's true that the bodies in this galaxy move relative to each other (actually following sacred geometric ratios that almost no-one seems to know about but which were all laid out in a tiny book a few years back). Without being able to define a 'true center' or true source for the universe that is fixed in location it is arguable that any body could be said to be the center. If you imagine the earth is static (as we essentially experience it on it's surface) then it isn't such a stretch to imagine that the sun moves around the earth (in fact that would be the most likely conclusion to make absent of any deep study). If you are on the sun somehow, then you could perhaps say the same there for the sun - where the earth could be said to be moving around the sun. I am not an expert in the history of perception of these things, but I wonder how much the idea that the earth circles the sun is based on the sun being considered older and more powerful.
I like the idea that we might subconsciously project the idea that the sun is "the boss" (older and more powerful, more influential, stronger gravity).
Thank you for your insightful comment.
My understanding is that the sun is yang energy (masculine and emitting), while the earth is yin (feminine and receptive) - I don't actually know (100%) which is older, though there has been a judgemental attitude which says that masculine is better than feminine since the very beginning.
Right, "masculine" (yang, "maker", "planner", "instigator") energy is often considered more "dangerous" (and that's often conflated with "more powerful") but on the other hand, you have KALI.
So, it's sort of a matter of perspective. "Order" versus "Chaos", which do you fear more?
Too much order, or too much chaos?
IMAGE SOURCE
the 'instigator' (good word) energy ultimately determines the outcome a lot of the time and since it began unconscious and thus also unloving, it has been responsible for all evil. the feminine has had to carry the results. that said, neither is really more powerful - it's just 'first mover advantage' in a sense.
too much order leads to stagnation and death. too much chaos at least has the potential to recover into balance.
balance is best :)
And even Karl Popper admits, when pressed, that science isn't based on "objectivity" but rather on "a broad consensus" of "well qualified individuals", which in a lot of ways is nearly functionally identical,
I'm not suggesting it's "true" simply because Popper admits it.
Please challenge my axioms and or point out a specific logical error and or provide a counter-factual.
If you are not adding in 'the koppler' to bolster your position, then why add it?
If you are adding it bolster your position, it's an appeal to authority.
It is a fact that science cannot be objective because humans cannot be objective (based on the definition of objectivity) and science requires humans.
I mention Popper in order to illustrate that this is not a unique or original insight.
It's like giving credit to someone for a quote (or idea).
The quote (idea) itself is usually not understood to be true simply because the person we give credit to just happens to have said it.
Objectivity Promotes Demonization,
The concept of objectivity allows people to speak with what they believe is unquestionable authority.
If you believe your statements are objective, then you must believe that anyone who disputes your statements are either being disingenuous, "are fundamentally and incurably stupid and/or evil", or intellectually deaf and blind. Case closed. Let's all go back to our bubbles.
This false confidence is what allows people to commit atrocities against each other.
You've committed a category error.
Humans are fundamentally subjective.
Do you think some things are more important than other things?
If you do, then your perspective is SUBJECTIVE.
Do you consider every possibility and every fact with equal consideration?
If you don't (can't) then you are guilty of SAMPLE-BIAS which is anathema to "objectivity".
Perspectives are subjective.
Objective reality doesn't rely on perspective.
1+1 = 2. You cant get away from this.
If this is an objective truth, then objectivity exists.
Which then makes your argument wrong.
....attempting to put words into my mouth, and creative assumptive propositions for me within a circular argument, tells me that your ego is bigger than your intellect.
Grow up.
(stupidity can be mitigated, but it will take some work. Baaah!)
bye.
Objectivity - Utterly free of and existing independently from any possible subjective feelings, opinions and/or any prejudice; indisputable and seen identically by all possible observers; not subject to variation, change or interpretation.
Mathematics is an abstract framework that is only meaningful to humans who have been initiated.
It is not seen identically by all possible observers. Those symbols are meaningless squiggles to anyone and anything that has not been taught their meaning.
No it does not.
Even mathematics cannot escape sample-bias.
For example,
Mathematics is the language of the universe.
We didn't make it up, we just discovered it. Humans have that capability.
You add up 1+1 for the rest of your life, with all your friends, and repeat the experiment, every minute, of every day, for the rest of your lives.
If you ever come up with a different answer, get back to me.
That experiment - for all intents and purposes of existing in the real world - because we exist in the real world defines an objective reality.
(intellectual masturbation to prove intellect, is not my thing. I gave it up years ago. Postmodernism is cancer)