h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

<>

Sounds a lot like anarchy to me...

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Would I be right in saying that my belief - if it is accepted as correct - that objectivity is impossible for human beings [1] would invalidate this Objectivism stuff? Or isn't its connection with objectivity (as per dictionary definition) that strong?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

[1] Our perception isn't objective. Therefore we cannot use it to verify an objective claim. If we can't verify an objective claim, it becomes meaningless. [See my journal entry "What is reality?", on my home page, for a more detailed exposition.]

I don't get this... but then, I've not really been paying attention. However, it sounds like anarchy to me... well, or something close to it.

Our perception is subjective, but there are sections of it which are objective. For example, reading text is objective, because (almost) all people see the same letters. We can therefore use objective perception to acquire information on the subjective perception of others, and multiple subjective viewpoints can be used to create an objective viewpoint.

So there...

As I understand it objectivism accepts that our perceptions may be subjective to a degree, but that this does not alter the objective reality of the world, ie the world IS, irrespective of what we think.

Well, insofar as communication has any reality (problematic, but only if you're willing to go there, brains in vats, solipsism (ooh! should solipsism go in the hat?), etc), we can talk about which parts of experience are *shared* by other people, which makes them seem a bit *more* objective anyway (less subjective, anyway). This is why scientific experiments are only meaningful if they can be repeated. A Chinese person will observe that colliding bodies, for example, follow the same laws that a German will see them following.

I once said that Science was the project of describing the mathematical properties of the shared experience of humans, as opposed to art, which is concerned with the aesthetic properties of our shared experience. I dunno *why* I said that, but I seem to remember saying it.

Of course, the shared experience of humans isn't an acid test for objective truth by any means. We might all agree that a certain material is transparent, while a being who's eyes (or whatever) register different wavelengths will find it opaque. (That being is *wrong* and I won't allow it to sit at my lunch-counter!)

I guess the hope is that, as Science de-anthropomorphizes itself, it becomes more objective. That seems true, but I'm not sure I could prove it, if asked to do so on an exam, or in front of a town meeting.

What's the use of an objective truth if it's unknowable?

(What's the use of an objective truth if it's unknowable?... 42. Nope, doesn't work.)

I guess we could try to approach it as a limit, but I only say that because I've been studying differential equations lately, and I like approaching things as a limit.

Well, that's just a question of semantics: when I say 'transparent' in normal conversation, it's short for 'transparent to human eyes'. You can also talk about UV-transparent materials, for example. When an Englishman talks to a Frenchman, a translator is needed - the same would apply when an Englishman talks to an Alpha Centauri Betian - but that doesn't invalidate objective truth.

And yes, both solipsism and reverse solipsism should go in the hat - if only to give me a chance to plug A491681 ...

<>

None whatsoever - this is my point. [Thanks for the opportunity to state this so clearly! ]

To bring this thought back into the realms of usefullness: objective knowledge (and its pursuit) is a waste of time for humans, but *knowledge* (and *its* pursuit) is not. All that's lost is our ability to meaningfully express an objective (i.e. certain; 100% accurate and correct) claim.

A non-objective claim associated with a very high probability of being correct is perfectly acceptable. In fact, it's not only acceptable, but mandatory, otherwise the world disappears in a puff of (non-)logic.

In short: abandon objectivity, and all we lose is certainty [which I believe we never had anyway!]

Apart from the above rant I agree with all that's been posted, except for Lucinda's contribution (see following post).

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

<>

The key word here is "almost". Objectivity implies absolute correctness; 100% probability. Yes, I know I'm splitting hairs, but this is the essence of the silliness which is objectivity. It actually implies the existence - in the Real World - of certainty.

Wouldn't you agree, Luce, that *some* people will incorrectly perceive (i.e. read) the letters you refer to? And will they be aware that they have mis-perceived, or will they assume (as most of us do, most of the time) that they read the letters correctly?

When our perception lets us down, there are no flags raised to indicate what's happened. A mis-perception and an accurate perception are indistinguishable to the perceiver.

For everyday purposes, our perception is entirely adequate. It's only when you introduce the concept of certainty (i.e. objectivity) that things start to get silly...

Thus: <>

No there aren't! So there...

<<...multiple subjective viewpoints can be used to create an objective viewpoint...>>

They can? So (absolute) truth (an objective viewpoint) can be determined by consensus? Remember when people believed the Earth was flat? Was their belief correct? And yet it was the view of the (vast) majority...

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

I don't have to demonstrate that *all* people see the same letters - I'm not requiring a single universal method of communication. All I require is that for any two people, there is some communication channel with some reasonable capacity. And, incidentally, unreliable communication channels still have a capacity - it's just lower than 100% reliable ones.

The thing is, you're claiming that I can't make statements like "The capital of the UK is London", but I can make statements like "There is a 99% chance of the capital of the UK being London." That's inconsistent: if there's no such thing as objective truth, then I couldn't reliably say that there's a 99% chance - I'd have to say that there's a 99% chance that there's a 99% chance of the capital of the UK being London. And then...

> "Remember when people believed the Earth was flat? Was their belief correct?"

I wasn't there - but if I had been I could have accurately stated that "The majority of people I have communicated with who have expressed an opinion claim to believe that the Earth is flat", and it would be true.



Ok, to be sure to believe in objective truth (as with anything) you have to start off with axioms, and one of those axioms is that the universe is ordered in a way which makes reasoning possible: so the rules of logic and probability have to be valid, and solipsism is not acceptable. But it *is* a self-consistent model.

By contrast, any statement that objective truth is impossible is an attempt to state an objective truth - one way to be self-consistent is to accept that there is a possibility that those who believe in objective truth could be right. Alternatively, you could say that objective truth is impossible for *you*, but may be possible for others, and thus be making a subjective statement. Either way, your statement needs qualifiers.



I'm sorry, but you can't go around making objective statements while claiming that there's no such thing as objective truth:

> "some people will incorrectly perceive the letters" - will they?
> "A mis-perception and an accurate perception are indistinguishable to the perceiver." - how can you be sure?
> "For everyday purposes, our perception is entirely adequate" - is it?
> "Who cares, wins" - always?

<<...you're claiming that I can't make statements like "The capital of the UK is London", but I can make statements like "There is a 99% chance of the capital of the UK being London.">>

Er, no. I would phrase my claim thus: "I claim that London is the capital of the UK, and I would estimate the probability that my claim is correct and accurate to be 99%." Actually, I'd prefer to express myself a lot less formally, but formality seems appropriate here and now.

<<..if there's no such thing as objective truth...>>

Ah now we're getting somewhere. I'm definitely not saying there's no such thing as objective truth. I *am* saying that, if we were presented with such a thing, we would be unable to verify it as such.

>>> "Remember when people believed the
>>> Earth was flat? Was their belief correct?"
> I wasn't there - but if I had been I could have
> accurately stated that "The majority of people
> I have communicated with who have expressed an
> opinion claim to believe that the Earth is flat",
> and it would be true.

Yes, you could've said that, and it would've been true, but you're evading my question entirely.

<<...to believe in objective truth (as with anything) you have to start off with axioms...>>

Oh, you're feeding me all the right lines! Axioms? Those would be statements whose truth we accept without proof, wouldn't they? Hard to build a house of certainty on such a foundation, wouldn't you say?

<<...there is a possibility that those who believe in objective truth could be right.>>

Yes, I would certainly accept that. All I'm doing is claiming it can't be proved, or challenging you to prove it! - one or the other.

> "some people will incorrectly perceive the letters" - will they?

In my experience, yes.

> "A mis-perception and an accurate perception are
> indistinguishable to the perceiver." - how can you be sure?

I can't, of course. But I don't need to be. I reject the ludicrous requirement for certainty that objectivism demands. My belief seems consistent with the universe as I perceive it. That's good enough for me, perhaps until something more conclusive comes along?

> "For everyday purposes, our perception
> is entirely adequate" - is it?

It is for me, and the others I (think I) observe also seem to manage.

> "Who cares, wins" - always?

Oh, yes. (He or she) who cares has already and always 'won' - in the sense that winning and losing are not what matters. I don't think I can prove it for you, though.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Okay, my take:

Objectivity - or 'absolute truth': I personally believe it exists, but I have no evidence of it as it's impossible to prove using our limited perceptual and communicative abilities. See "Mostly Harmless" where the Guide Mk. 2 is talking about unfiltered perception - that's quite relevant here.

Axioms: if you're going to prove anything you have to start with axioms, otherwise you have no terms in which to understand or accept any other proofs. Another argument for the inability of humans to express or perceive absolute truth.

(Didn't know this thread was here )

Short, sweet, and to the point, MaW. Well said.

Pattern-chaser

"Who craes, wins"

In a lecture on Monday re. scientific knowledge the lecturer told us to try an experiment. Get three cups of water, one as hot as you can stand, one ice cold and one body temperature. Place one hand in the cup of hot water and one in the cold for a few minutes. Then put the hand from the hot water into the body temp. water. Then put the hand from the cold water into the body temp. water. You'll never trust your own perception again. I'm with Descartes on this one, the only thing we can truly know is that we are thinking... perhaps

In my (subjective) opinion, objectivity is unachievable by a person, or people, or frankly anything that isn't everything. To move back to one of the earlier arguments, it has been said that reading text is objective. I am moved to disagree. You see, to read text, one takes in an arrangement of photons, or perhaps not really, the reader can't know this for sure, it does after all have to pass through the subconscious brain first, which has been observed to distort things. Once these arrangements are passed through the conscious brain, they are interpereted by the conscious brain (only partially, the rest is subconscious, but that's spitting 256ths of hairs, now back to my 128ths) into thoughts, which the reader assumes by previous agreement that the writer (which is also only assumed to exist) intended. So, you see, it is not certain, even if the seen words are interpereted correctly along the lines of the agreement (english language). For example, here I write "AND". You might reasonably assume that I am arbitrarily writing an inclusive conjunction. however, I'll tell you that the original meaning was a feline mammal, "cat". I encrypted it using the key c=A, a=N, t=D. see?
everything that a human believes in, straight down to simple arithmetic, is based on an axiom. Thus, it could be false. and so, it can not be objective. I think.

When's the next drawing, GT? these discussions are fun. one a week!

*sits down and munches hat. and a bit of Marshmallow arm. looks at his watch*
oh! I'd best get going.
*stands up, runs over to a deep swamp, jumps in, picks up a giant's sword, cuts the head off a rather marshmallowy descendant of Cain, and carries it back on the end of a spear*

Marshmallow Man's mother, you see.

The written word is completely open to interpretation. I think Wittgenstein called it 'language games'. There are a number of models of communication but the general gist is: the 'sender', ie. author or speaker, sends his message, the receiver then decodes it. Language is far more complex than just which country a person is from. The way the receiver decodes the message depends on their culture, traditions, experiences, etc. As no two people can share the same experiences, culture and traditions as each other all communication is completely open to interpretation. How many times have researchers in the FFFF forum misinterpreted something another researcher has typed and given the posting a different meaning?

Re. scientific facts, the problem with objective science is that it is carried out by objective scientists. No matter how impartial a scientist tries to be they still have to rely on their judgement and interpretation. It was put a lovely way to me: science does not set out to prove anything as it can't. Science sets out to disprove things.,

Oops, typo. Should read 'subjective scientists' not 'objective scientists'.

I'm just not used to this: most of you agree with me. It makes me feel all warm inside. Normally, I'm treated like an alien when I start on about objectivity. Or maybe you should all feel like aliens!

Anyway, invoking my power to foretell the future (did I mention that?) I predict that this week's religion will be particularly entertaining, and that the nominated victim will defend their new belief system in an enthusiastic and humourous fashion. I can hardly wait.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Well, this has been a fun one, hasn't it? A bit slow to get started but I knew this group couldn't leave Objectivism alone for a whole week.

Would it be good to keep a list of drawing winners on the main FFFF page? (and don't ask me to objectively define 'good'.... would it be desirable to any of us, do we think?)

Ah - speaking of drawing winners, I think tomorrow's Tuesday! There's no objective proof that keeping your fingers crossed will help!