jump to last post 1-19 of 19 discussions (232 posts)

Subjective Truth vs Objective Truth

  1. emrldphx profile image61
    emrldphxposted 5 years ago

    For those who are interested, I am putting together a primer on the difference between subjectivity and objectivity. Much of the disagreement in this forum is due to confusion between the two. We'll start with a comparison of the definition of the terms.






    Subjectivity

    Subjectivity is a personal process, and as such, subjective truth is also personal. There is no method, mechanism, or process, by which one can project their own subjective knowledge onto another person. Let's demonstrate this with two examples.



    These two can discuss their feelings, experiences, and knowledge with each other, and perhaps both of them will gain a greater understanding of the others' point of view. Perhaps one of them will change their point of view. The point is, discussion between differing models of subjective knowledge is ok. It works, and it doesn't have to hurt anyone's feelings.



    I'm not trying to make a statement here about Diety vs. Non-Diety beliefs, it can go either way. The point is that when you depart from the nature of subjective information, there is nothing to be gained(except the possibility of an artificially inflated ego due to putting someone else down).


    Objectivity

    Objectivity is a process that allows people to work together and share knowledge, as long as the process is followed. The best objective method of discovering truth is the scientific method.



    Following this method, information can be discovered, shared, and experienced by anyone. Objective information is difficult to argue over.


    Problems

    The problem comes when people start to mix objective information and subjective information. Let's look at an example.



    When something can't be considered objectively(i.e. can't be measured, detected, or manipulated), it falls in the realm of subjectivity. Trying to argue one against the other can't work. You can't change fact based on the way you feel, and you can't change the way you feel based off of facts that can't be measured or detected.


    What's the point?

    I think we would all be better off if we stuck to mature discussion, whether subjective or objective, without trying to irrationally try and mix the two, or put others down.

    1. paradigmsearch profile image91
      paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Deleted

      1. emrldphx profile image61
        emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks paradigm... it's rare to find anything but sprawling drivel when I write it big_smile

    2. 69
      paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      A useful post.
      One should not put others down; one should respect others; one way of respecting others is that one gives rational arguments for one's point of view and does not ridicule and does not deride others.

      1. emrldphx profile image61
        emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I agree completely. It's like the difference between Steve Pavlina saying everyone in any religion is either an idiot or a hypocrite, and someone stating they don't believe in Diety/religion, but that's just them.

    3. kess profile image59
      kessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Truth is absolut .... Otherwise no thing can ever Exist.


      Truth cannot ever be divided against itself.....  If it does it has become a lie and cease to be Truth,.......


      Truth can be subjective and objective ONLY when the two are in total unity.
      Or we may also say Truth cannot be subjective and objective at the same time going different ways.....


      Anyone who do not know These thing to be TRUE......

      Do not know TRUTH and this forms the basis of endless arguments like this one.

      1. emrldphx profile image61
        emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Subjectivity vs Objectivity doesn't define two different types of truth. It defines two different ways of discovering truth.

        Obviously all truth is truth, having two paths to find it doesn't change that.

        1. kess profile image59
          kessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Nothing I have said negated this position....however


          In rereading your post I will also say this to you.....

          Objectivity alone is weak when it comes to showing the Specific nature of Truth....
          Why because Objectivity is still subjective to the observer(s).

          While the Observers alone is directly Subjective to Truth.

          So all Objectivity can only be directly subjective to Truth Through the subjective Observer...

          So if one divides the Path to Truth into Subjectivity and objectivity it merely means that both path are merely one and the same or.....


          ....That one NEVER knew Truth to begin with.

          This obvious answer is the latter through objective reasoning which is exactly the same as subjective reasoning...

          What do you see?....

          1. emrldphx profile image61
            emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I would have to disagree about objectivity. Experimental results show the laws of nature, perfectly. Yes, we can interpret them incorrectly, but the objectivity of science is perfect. Everything else(theories, laws, formulas) is just an *attempt* to explain them. That is subjective, but any scientist worth their salt knows that.

            1. kess profile image59
              kessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Can science be explain science without involving it same "laws theories and formunlaes".

              If Science belongs to the scientist (feel free to twist it around if it suits you), how come the scientist still do not know Truth....... even though they supposedly approach it objectively?

              Every scientific concept can and has already been disproved by the law of Life and Life alone is perfect.


              I may agree with the fact that science is perfect.. but its perfection is not of itself otherwise it too would be absolute....for it changes on a daily basis.

              Science can be considered as perfect only when interpreted within he context of Life, which perfectly manipulates all things for its benefits.

    4. Cagsil profile image84
      Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I saw this thread posted last night and was too tired to say anything, however, I guess I'll just say lol lol lol lol lol

      1. emrldphx profile image61
        emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        ?

      2. lone77star profile image91
        lone77starposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Ah, Cags. Forever adding nothing of value to the discussion. Such emptiness. Such a waste.

    5. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The thing is....the evidence for God's existence (as some people may have already said here? ...I haven't read the entire thread..)  is based on both subjective and objective reasoning.  Mankind has both subjective and objective powers of thinking, feeling, and deduction.   Try as you might to separate the two, it won't work.

      1. emrldphx profile image61
        emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        No, you must separate the two. Let's say there is this thing called spirit. It's made up of something that we can't detect. Maybe dark matter, maybe something else.

        While we as a race can't detect or measure it, it can't be proven, or explained, objectively. If tomorrow we discover a spiritometer, then it would become an objective discovery.

        Until then, though, it can only be discussed subjectively. The problem is when people try to put forward their subjective opinions as objective facts.

        1. 0
          Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          But there is evidence (overwhelming evidence!) that people have spirits.   We detect that from people's personalities, words, and even actions.
          And when a person dies, we know there's something gone besides just a physical body.

          1. emrldphx profile image61
            emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            It can be considered subjective evidence, but not objective, until it can be measured empirically.

            I'm not dissing subjectivity at all, or trying to say there is no such thing as Diety. I'm just saying, there could be other reasons for any current evidence of God.

          2. A Troubled Man profile image60
            A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            No, that is their personality, their words and their actions.



            No, there isn't. Their biological functions simply cease to function, that is all. Nothing actually leaves the body.

        2. aguasilver profile image88
          aguasilverposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Taking your point a stage further, suppose we had been discussing, say television in 1890, then I guess you would agree that at that point you would have called my belief that pictures could be transmitted around the world and seen in another country instantly a subjective viewpoint.

          Would TV waves be any less real, or just unknown at that time to science?

          We are all 'spiritometers' everyone of us, some are tuned into the wrong spiritual wavelengths, some flick channels out of boredom, and some have their favourite channels locked on the remote control.

          Some people refuse to tune in at all and deny that TV is real, never possessing the receiver to tune them into what is unseen and therefore unproven to them.

          I tune in and turn on daily to my spiritual broadcasts, and therefore cannot care whether you or anyone views it as subjective by sciences rules, I just enjoy the show.

          Science may catch up in time, if any scientist will pay the price of a receiver.

          1. emrldphx profile image61
            emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Yes, I would call it subjective at that point, because by definition, until something can be empirically measured by science, it can't be proven by science.

            That doesn't mean I would say it is impossible. Most objective discoveries are the result of a lot of subjective thought.

            I believe in spirit, but I'm not going to try and show anyone empiric proof of it, not yet.

            1. aguasilver profile image88
              aguasilverposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Cool with that.... cool

          2. A Troubled Man profile image60
            A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            lol lol

            1. emrldphx profile image61
              emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              ^
              The epitome of maturity.

              1. Cagsil profile image84
                Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                And I'm sure that some time in your life you've laughed at something that was funny to you, but wasn't to someone else. roll

                1. emrldphx profile image61
                  emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  There is a big difference between laughing at something you think is funny, and bringing in your laughter as an argument against what you read.

                  After all, lol isn't the same as laughing... you have to hit reply, type it, and hit submit. It's intentional to try and demean someone or something.

                  1. Cagsil profile image84
                    Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    And, that's YOUR interpretation. Good to know you're a negative individual.

                  2. A Troubled Man profile image60
                    A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Laughing hysterically at simple-minded claims of magic and mysticism is not the action of bringing in an argument, it's just plain laughter. smile

              2. A Troubled Man profile image60
                A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                You flatter me. smile

                1. emrldphx profile image61
                  emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Are you ever going to attempt to answer my questions? Or, are you just going to continue ignoring them and claiming I make no valid arguments?

                  You refuse to define what makes something real, and you refuse to answer my questions I pose to you about what makes things real.

                  I'll ask them again, just on the off chance you feel like having a reasonable discussion.

                  1 - Does something have to be visible in the visible light spectrum to exist?

                  2 - Do atoms exist?

                  3 - How can atoms exist if they can't be seen with visible light?

                  1. aguasilver profile image88
                    aguasilverposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Frankly, you are wasting your time with this ghost, just look at his profile, 1,664 inane posts with no content, keeping count he has produced nearly 60 posts in the last 36 hours.... an empty vessel with no hubs, ignore him, I do.

  2. AEvans profile image71
    AEvansposted 5 years ago

    I give you kudos for trying but it will not happen. I however appreciate that you took the time to clearly define and give examples of objectivity and subjectivity. I am looking forward to seeing what others have to say about the thread. Welcome to HubPages! Be prepared and tread lightly. smile

    1. emrldphx profile image61
      emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Haha, thank you for the kudos. I understand that it won't happen, at least on a community level. But, you never know what will trigger a thought in someone's brain that will end up changing their life. This is why I love discussion and debate... it's my favorite way to open up new possibilities for both parties.

      1. 69
        paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks and regards

  3. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
    Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago

    Very Nicely Stated.

    Following your objectivity model, and your model for scientific method.

    I have objectively/scientifically proven the existence of God.

    1. emrldphx profile image61
      emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Thank you.

      I would be very interested in your proof.

      1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
        Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Read the Hub.

        1. emrldphx profile image61
          emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Haha, sorry, I'm new to HP, so the thought hadn't crossed my mind yet. Still working on so many things at once at this point smile

          1. 69
            paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I think this thread should remain here as it is.

  4. paradigmsearch profile image91
    paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago

    The op is one of the most logical, intelligent posts that I have seen in awhile.

    If it was me, I'd delete it and put it in a hub.

    If you do decide to do that, I'll delete my previous post as well, so as to remove the extra copy.

    [edit:In fact, I'm going to go ahead and do that.]

    1. emrldphx profile image61
      emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I don't know what all the rules are, but if I were to make a hub out of this I would have to expand on it, and clarify some points that I didn't put in... I don't know if I would have to delete this or not...

      1. paradigmsearch profile image91
        paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Duplicate content is a major no-no around here. So you would need to delete the post if you want to use it in a hub.

        1. emrldphx profile image61
          emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Well... I'm not sure, honestly. I guess I have a time limit for making changes.

          It's not really the kind of thing I envisioned writing hubs on at this time...

          Lol.

          1. paradigmsearch profile image91
            paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            For future reference, the last I heard we have a "poster's remorse" 3-hour time limit to change/delete posts. When HP set that, I don't think they even envisioned me using it for my "should have put that in a hub" remorse. big_smile

  5. paradigmsearch profile image91
    paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago

    I've done it myself. I just replace it with <post deleted to be used as part of hub> or some such nonsense. smile

  6. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
    Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago

    On your comment:

    Logic IS science


    log·ic [loj-ik] noun
    1.the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.

    2.a particular method of reasoning or argumentation: We were unable to follow his logic.

    3.the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.

    4.reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions: There wasn't much logic in her move.

    5.convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness: the irresistible logic of the facts.

    1. emrldphx profile image61
      emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I guess I'll respond here rather than in your comments.

      I don't consider logic a science, but I guess some do. The definition I think of most would be similar to:

      LOGIC
      Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

      My problem with calling logic 'science', is how do you apply the scientific method? What is there in reasoning itself, that can be measured and tested. I consider it more of a tool of science, used in the stages of forming hypothesis and drawing conclusions from data.

      1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
        Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Actually the definition I provided is straight from dictionary . com.
        It is the correct definition.

        Measured and tested... You are assuming only physical things can be tested and measured. To you only physical touch is valid.

        Concepts, Ideas can also be tested and measured. The tools are different, but the testing is no less valid.

        1. emrldphx profile image61
          emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I know there are multiple definitions for things... we can use that definition. Even still, it's not something that can be subjected to the scientific method, which is extremely important to me.

          Logically, I think it is a great argument. big_smile

          1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
            Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Then what you believe to be the scientific method is flawed, incomplete. Again the scientific method is not exclusively the physical.

            1. emrldphx profile image61
              emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Actually, the scientific only deals with things that can be measured. If you can't measure something, you have to use something else to deal with it. That's where subjectivity comes in.

              If we developed a technique for measuring, let's say, the power of prayer, then prayer would start to move from a subjective topic to an objective topic.

              1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
                Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Physical measurement isn't the only type of measurement.

                Truth can be measured, scientifically. Using facts and Logic is the way truth is scientifically measured.

                1. emrldphx profile image61
                  emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Tell me, how do you measure logic and apply it to the scientific method?

                  1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
                    Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Logic is the measure.

                    What you asked is how you measure the inch and apply it to the scientific method.

            2. paradigmsearch profile image91
              paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I read your profile. How in god's name do you know what god wants? Did he call you, drop you a note, send you a fax, what?

              1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
                Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                A little defensive there aren't you?

                1. paradigmsearch profile image91
                  paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  About what? And nice try; you dodge the question and attack the questioner.

                  Kind of sad really... I was really hoping for a sincere answer, but I guess it is not to be.

                  I guess I know all I need to know about Mikel G Roberts. Enjoy your dodge ball game. And keep attacking those questioners; otherwise, you might actually have to engage in some self-examination. And we certainly don't want that, do we?

                  What's really sad is that I actually liked some of your hubs and wanted to talk with you about them. I liked some of the things you said. Oh, well. Bye.

                  1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
                    Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    To use your words:   
                    ...nice try; you dodge the question and attack the questioner.

                    Kind of sad really...

      2. 69
        paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I agree with you. logic is art of reasoning;science makes its use as a common tool; but of itself it belongs to artsa and is not science.

    2. 69
      paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this



      Logic preceded science; it is more concerned with arts .

      1. couturepopcafe profile image61
        couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I've never in all my 6o+ years as an artist heard the word logic applied even remotely to the arts, in any form.  Please elaborate.  With the exception of the previous argument where 'a system of principles and methods is employed in the performance of a set of activities' thereby being referred to as 'the art of reasoning', there is no art in logic.  Logic itself studies reasoning.  I could 'reason' that blue and yellow make green because every time I mix blue and yellow, I get green.  It's therefore logical to assume this.  But the nature of art itself, at least when referring to painted or sculptural art, is man's effort to imitate life or nature by arranging mediums to create.  In this sense, I suppose logic does come into play.  Most 'chaos' 'artists' are generally not accepted by the juries because they are too difficult to 'see'.  So art, then, remains subjective.

  7. earnestshub profile image89
    earnestshubposted 5 years ago

    Who exactly would be in need of a hub, or for that matter a thread about the dictionary definitions of two common words?

    Is this aimed at primary school children?

    1. emrldphx profile image61
      emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Nice to see you here Earnest smile

      You were part of my inspiration, from our discussion last night(yesterday for you) where you were trying to define my beliefs by your beliefs.

      1. earnestshub profile image89
        earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        That is perspective for you. I thought I was separating fact from fantasy. smile

  8. emrldphx profile image61
    emrldphxposted 5 years ago

    We're obviously not going to get anywhere going back and forth like this. We just have to agree to disagree on whether or not logic is objective or subjective.

    1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
      Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      No, we don't. You can point out a flaw in my logic that I can't refute, like I've been doing to yours. Or we can do what you're wanting and allow you to continue to believe the correctness of your incorrect conclusions.(Which is what most people choose).

      1. emrldphx profile image61
        emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You haven't pointed out flaws in my logic that I can't refute. I have pointed out ones you haven't.



        If you can objectively test concepts and ideas, then it should be possible to objectively prove or disprove the existence of Diety. It's not. Your first post said you followed my explanation of objective/subjective, but you didn't. You have used subjective proof. There is no phenomenon in logic that you can measure. There is nothing you can experiment with. Logic is a way of thinking, which is by definition, personal. Once you can lay out your way of thinking for us to experiment and measure, then we'll talk objectivity.



        Again, you defined logic as 'what isn't illogical'. You can't define something with itself.



        Lastly, here's this for your thought. The scientific method relies on empirical observation. In other words, things that can be observed with the senses, not things based off of feelings or reasoning.

        I'm sorry, I just have to end it here unless you learn a little more about the scientific method. You can't use logic as a form of proof in the scientific method... you can use it to try and explain things, but not as the proof.

        In other words, you can't scientifically prove the existence of god using logic.

        You can only logically prove the existence of god(or try to, at least).

        1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
          Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          roll


          It is and I have.

          Got Proof? My proof is supplied in the hub. However simply put, for there to not be a Supreme Being, there could not be any beings in existence.



          Again assigning your assumptions as truth doesn't make them the truth. Got Proof that things are the way you say they are? If my proof was subjective then with me out of the equation it would no longer be true. But my personal experiences and subjective feelings aren't what constitutes the proof. No where in the proof are my intuition or gut feelings used as proof.



          No. I supplied the definition of Logic from dictionary . com. This is a misquote on your part that was in answer to a question you posed.

          Then I would love to see the spaceship that Einstein took to outer space and proved that Relativity was true. You know the ship that couldn't go faster than light speed. Yea, that one.

          lol

          I'm sure Einstein will be sorry to hear this, as his greatest discovery was proven in just this manner. Glad you're around to set us straight.

          1. emrldphx profile image61
            emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Einstein didn't prove relativity with thought experiments. He proved them with real experiments. Nobody would accept a theory with no foundation in verifiable experimentation.

            I'm getting tired of this back and forth with you. I didn't mis-quote you. I quoted you.

            Go learn about the scientific method, and tell me how logic can be used as empirical observation. Do that one thing, and we'll talk.

            1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
              Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Sure thing Boss... Thanks for Playing roll

  9. recommend1 profile image70
    recommend1posted 5 years ago

    You are out of date - there is no such thing as objective, everything is subjective.

    1. emrldphx profile image61
      emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Science is dead?

      1. recommend1 profile image70
        recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        No - just subjective.  It doesn't change many of the conclusions but it does change observed phenomena - and the only proof is that lots of people agree with the conclusion.

        1. emrldphx profile image61
          emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Science can't be subjective by definition. If you want to expound on that, feel free.

          1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
            Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Truth can't be subjective by definition. If you want to expound on that, feel free.

          2. recommend1 profile image70
            recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Maybe you both should do some expounding on what you mean because science certainly is subjective and so is truth.

            1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
              Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I disagree. Truth is truth, just like a fact is a fact.

              Thinking incorrectly that something is true when it isn't might lead some to think that Truth can be untrue, which is of course a fallacy.

              1. recommend1 profile image70
                recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                As YOU are thinking it - everything that follows is by definition subjective.

                1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
                  Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  No that just proves my thoughts are subjective. Truth does not change because I think it or don't think it. Truth remains constant regardless of opinion, consensus, or the lack of either.

                  If in any way a truth is untrue, it isn't a truth and never was. We just mistakenly thought it was. Therefore my opinion of what is true is subjective, but the actual truth (whatever that is) is and always will be true by definition.

                  1. couturepopcafe profile image61
                    couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    This is an interesting, and very subjective conversation.  I believe truth is implicitly subjective.  It falls into the category of 'as a man thinks'.  Science has created its own rules and those rules are the accepted standards by which science plays it own game.

                    The truth will differ for everyone.  Of course, this is based on the assumption of enlightenment for which is necessary a dispelling of archaic beliefs about visible forms of reality such as burning your feet when you walk across hot coals, for example.

  10. emrldphx profile image61
    emrldphxposted 5 years ago

    Setting aside all philosophical arguments about reality...

    Truth, as determined by science, comes through the scientific process, which requires an empirical observation of natural phenomenon. Empirical is objective. It is observation through the senses, as compared to thought or feeling.

    Therefore, by definition, science has to be objective.

    Truth can be discovered either subjectively or objectively, depending on the type of truth. Science deals with the objective. Logic and rationalism deal with the subjective.

    Just because you think something doesn't mean it's necessarily subjective. Think of it this way. Objective things can be, in one form or another, physically compared with others. The length of a meter is objective, and can be physically shown to someone with a meter stick.

    Subjective things can't be shared like that, because there is no physical representation of the truth. We can try and explain it and share it that way.

    If you can't understand the difference between the two, then there's no point in arguing semantics when you don't understand them.

    1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
      Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      What is a meter?

      It is a length of measure decided by consensus. If humanity wanted to, the length we assigned as a meter could have been twice as long or half as long as the length we settled on.

      This is a truth.

      saying the meter always was and is what we say it is regardless of consensus is untrue.

      Lengths exist.

      This is a truth.

      The way we determine and classify the different lengths is subjective, and based on a consenses. Science is a measuring system. As such it is based in consenses. Truth isn't dependent on consenses, it remains unaffected by opinion or consenses.

      Science may be subjective, but the truths it uncovers aren't.

      1. emrldphx profile image61
        emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Ok, I see you changed your post.

        Your statements have nothing to do with the difference between subjective truth and objective truth. What we name as a 'meter' is simply semantics. The length that we call 'meter' has always been the same, but it's still objective. It's something you can actually measure. An objective truth.

        The existence of Diety is subjective. There is no measurement we can make, no experiment we can undertake. It's a subjective truth/untruth.

        Science *can not* be subjective. If you find truth subjectively, by definition it isn't science.

        1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
          Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Truth is Truth. A subjective truth is an oxymoron.

          No it is subjective based on a consenses. What you're trying to say (I Believe) is it is constant/unchanging.

          Fallacy, Again I ask can you prove this assumption. I have proven your mistaken assumption/opinion is false. Simply restating your flawed opinion a million times will not ever force it to be true, because it isn't true and never was.


          I understand this is a profound belief of yours. That you believe it profoundly however doesn't make it true if it isn't.

          The definition of science:
          Science (from Latin: scientia meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. An older and closely related meaning still in use today is that found for example in Aristotle, whereby "science" refers to the body of reliable knowledge itself, of the type that can be logically and rationally explained.

          1. emrldphx profile image61
            emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            You obviously don't know what subjective means Mikel. Go back and read your definitions from your favorite online dictionary. Subjective truth includes truth found through reasoning and personal experience... I would consider it ignorant to say it is impossible to discover truth with subjective methods.



            I'm saying that the actual length, not the word, of a meter, would be the same if we called it a pugwar, or 2 tingbals. The word doesn't make the thing, it just explains it. The length is the truth. 'Meter' is just a word to represent the truth.

            But the fact that you can have an object that is 1 meter and show it to others, they can measure it themselves, makes it objective. It is empirical = objective.



            Again, you don't understand what subjective means. You can't prove something that is subjective to someone else. If you could, it would be objective. Seriously, do yourself a favor, and learn what the words mean. I can't prove it to you, neither can you disprove it to me.



            I find it very funny that you didn't use the definition of science from your beloved dictionary.com, which according to you is the right definition.



            Your 'definition' includes Aristotle's kind of science, which is over 2300 years old. Your 'definition' came from wikipedia big_smile

            Besides, all science uses the scientific method. I've defined that very clearly for you. If you can't do an empirical test, it can't be objective.

            1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
              Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Taking my discussion with Emile R and Cagsil and replacing thier questions/comments with your different questions/comments ....Pathetic  roll

              1. emrldphx profile image61
                emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                No Mikel, I was replying to everything I had missed when I was out of town.

                I would like you to actually address those things, instead of call them pathetic... but you won't. You want to use a 2300 year old definition of science, 'prove' God with a definition that has nothing to do with diety, and only use real definitions when they suit you. If they don't you grab a section of wikipedia

              2. emrldphx profile image61
                emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Maybe if I only address 1 point at a time?

                Where should all definitions come from? Dictionary.com, as you argued earlier?

                1. 69
                  paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I add here.

                  Dictionaries and definitions of the words and terms change when the knowledge of human beings increases or decreases.

              3. 0
                Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Pathetic? Come'n Mikel. There is nothing pathetic about people disagreeing. It's life. Especially when it comes to philosophy and religion.

                I have a question. You swear your proof would help identify a Supreme Being. Do you agree that the being identified as'Supreme' would not necessarily be agreed upon?

                1. emrldphx profile image61
                  emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  He's just trying to make a stretch based off a false definition. According to Mikel, if the universe had 1 snail and 1 human, that would make the human God.

                2. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
                  Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  hmm

                  1. 0
                    Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    smile So, I take it you see the weakest link in your proof also. Now we're on the same page, somewhat.

        2. couturepopcafe profile image61
          couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          You're both correct, imo.  What was once subjective, the deciding of the length of the meter, is now an accepted objective standard.  Theoretically, the subjectivity of the creating of the standard was once open to opinion and concensus.  Now it is necessarily not.

  11. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
    Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago

    Scientific measure cannot be subjective.

  12. 0
    Emile Rposted 5 years ago

    Interesting OP. Recommend1 is right. Everything is subjective. You can be as objective as possible on anything; but the end conclusion is always subjective. And that is the problem with a spiritual argument. Since you posted this in the Religion and Philosophy section I think it is pertinent to remember that the objectivity of the spiritual advocate  is not only in question, it can never be proven; no matter how well spoken the spiritual person might be.

    You are being subjective about personal experience. Experience that cannot be observed by anyone but you. The spiritual person is expecting others to take their words at face value. Those who don't tread lightly will be ridiculed, and I think rightly so at times.

    As I said, interesting OP; but the points are out of place when it comes to religion. Imo.

    1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
      Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      roll By this logic Objective is subjective.

      Not liking the Truth doesn't make it untrue.

      1. 0
        Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I think, the point is that a spiritual conversation cannot claim truth. Only your perception of it. No one can prove anything. We argue otherwise because of ego.

        1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
          Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I disagree, my proof of the existence of the Supreme Being is logical and rational. It is not affected by my personal subjective thoughts or beliefs. That is why it is scientifically sound proof.

          1. 0
            Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I enjoy, and agree with, many things I've seen you post. Your 'scientific proof' doesn't fall into that category, simply because I find it difficult to understand why you can't see that this is no proof. Anyway, we've been round the block with that one. No point in attempting to see this eye to eye.

            1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
              Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Me Too! smile

              Your inability to "understand why I can't see that this is no proof" is simple, because it is proof by every definition.

              My proof does fall into the category of 'scientific proof' as illistrated by the definition of science:

              Science- (from Latin: scientia meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. An older and closely related meaning still in use today is that found for example in Aristotle, whereby "science" refers to the body of reliable knowledge itself, of the type that can be logically and rationally explained.


              True, if someone decides to ignore the truth even when presented with proof, then there is nothing left to do but sigh and allow them to believe what they want, no matter how illogical and irrational that belief might be.


              *Sigh*  hmm

              1. 0
                Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this



                Hhmmm.  It appears you are now taking your cues on interacting (while not sharing conclusions) from a few other hubbers.

                You be careful out there among them atheists. smile

                1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
                  Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Deleted

                  1. 0
                    Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Ok. I'll ask as politely as possible...... Does anyone, other than people who want to believe, agree that your proof is really a proof? That's what I mean by not coming to the same conclusions. Other than that, your reaction to those who disagree is the same. Somewhat condescending. smile

              2. couturepopcafe profile image61
                couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Wow, Mike.  You make a good argument for science and the existence of god.  (At least I think that's what you were trying to do.)  I believe that 'truth' exists everywhere, takes many forms and is continually changing.  This is why we reach different stages at different times in our lives.  If I use a parallel universe as an example, with teen years being one and mature adulthood being the other, I can see from the older universe into the teen, whose truth is quite different from his reality.  The fact that he does not 'see' it does not mean that it does not exist.  Once the parallax occurs, however, he is amazed at what hwe once thought of as truth.

              3. emrldphx profile image61
                emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Again, using wikipedia to define science. I dare you to take that definition to any science professor and ask them to critique your proof of God.

          2. A Troubled Man profile image60
            A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            lol If you remove all the logical fallacies, it's wonderful. lol

            1. OutWest profile image61
              OutWestposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Logic and absolute proof are not the same thing.

              1. Cagsil profile image84
                Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Correct they are not the same thing, however, absolute proof can be explained through using logic. If not, then it's not absolute proof.

                1. OutWest profile image61
                  OutWestposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Absolute proof just means it is tangible.  It can be repeated or physically observed.  Things can be proven that still may not make logical sense.  Gravity exists scientifically but no one can even prove what it is or how it exists.

                  1. Cagsil profile image84
                    Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    That's because it doesn't need to be. roll

                  2. A Troubled Man profile image60
                    A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    So, your logic is thus:

                    Gravity exists, but cannot be shown how it works, therefore God exists because He cannot be shown... AT ALL!!!

                2. emrldphx profile image61
                  emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  That would only be true if logic were proven true.

              2. A Troubled Man profile image60
                A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Bravo! Well done!

                Now, do you have a point?

                1. OutWest profile image61
                  OutWestposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I thought it was obvious.  If you use logic you could logically deduce that a Creator exists but there's still no absolute proof.

                  1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                    A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    lol Just like you can logically deduce the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. lol

                  2. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
                    Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Logic by definition, if used correctly, leads you to absolute truth. You're assuming what you define as 'absolute proof' and only what you define as absolute proof is absolute proof.

                    So define absolute proof.


                    ab·so·lute [ab-suh-loot, ab-suh-loot] adjective
                    1.free from imperfection; complete; perfect: absolute liberty.

                    2.not mixed or adulterated; pure: absolute alcohol.

                    3.complete; outright: an absolute lie; an absolute denial.

                    4.free from restriction or limitation; not limited in any way: absolute command; absolute freedom.

                    5.unrestrained or unlimited by a constitution, counterbalancing group, etc., in the exercise of governmental power, especially when arbitrary or despotic: an absolute monarch.

                    proof [proof]noun
                    1.evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.

                    2.anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?

                    3.the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof.

                    4.the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration.

                    5.Law. (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight.

                    Proof is Proof. Lack of Proof is Lack of Proof

                    Simply stating "That isn't 'Absolute Proof' " is just another way of adamantly saying "I don't like it but can't dis-prove it".  Soooooo I'll come up with a stronger way of denying it which will lend weight to my unprovable and mistaken opinion. roll


                    I have provided Proof of the existence of a Supreme Being, only Proof that my Proof is false can dis-prove it.

                    So AGAIN...   Got Proof?

              3. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
                Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Obviously if they were we wouldn't have different words. Your point is?

                1. OutWest profile image61
                  OutWestposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  See above:
                  If you use logic you could logically deduce that a Creator exists but there's still no absolute proof.

          3. emrldphx profile image61
            emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            It's not scientific! To be scientific you have to be able to show results through experimentation!

            Using just logic, I will prove that the earth is at the center of the universe, scientifically.

            I stand outside, not moving. I feel no movement. I watch the sun rise and fall. I see the stars rotated through the sky in circles. Obviously everything revolves around the earth.

            And that is why reasoning is not a science.

    2. emrldphx profile image61
      emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I put it here because some people don't seem to understand *why* it's impossible to prove a subjective truth, or disprove it, to someone else.

      Saying that everything is subjective, I think, is only reasonable in the sense of throwing our entire existence into possibly being fake(butterfly's dream). If we assume we are real, then objectivity does exist.

      Yes, it is possible for the conclusions made after an experiment to be subjective, but the results aren't. They are completely objective. They can be measured and repeated and compared by others.

      If people realize that spiritual experiences *are* subjective, then it opens the door to discussion and sharing ideas, rather than argument.

  13. Jo_Goldsmith11 profile image60
    Jo_Goldsmith11posted 5 years ago

    I so agree with you. My subjective opinion agrees that you make sense. My objectivity tells me that you have stated fact!  Awesome! smile

    1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
      Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Thank You. Sincerely.

      1. Cagsil profile image84
        Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Actually Mikel, she wasn't addressing you. She was addressing the OP. lol

        1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
          Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Oh.  sad

          1. Jo_Goldsmith11 profile image60
            Jo_Goldsmith11posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Mikel,

            Yes! I was adressing you. and the OP. They are both right in my object and subjective opinion and fact! smile
            hugs! Cagsil, smile)

            1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
              Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              hmm ...But ...I disagree with the op...   hmm?

              The op in my opinion is an oxymoron...truth isn't subjective. Truth is Truth.

              Subjective Truth is an oxymoron.  hmm


              (but while I thought you were talking to me <for those 4 seconds> it did make me feel good smile) so Thanks.

  14. paradigmsearch profile image91
    paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago

    This thread is awesome! smile smile smile

    If participants are willing to include Boolean Logic in their discussions, it will weed out the inadequate in nothing flat. The dodgers/debaters will become readily apparent and will be ignored. True discussions can then take place.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_al … 28logic%29

    Of course, that would not be as much fun. big_smile

    1. couturepopcafe profile image61
      couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      That'll certainly explain the universe in all of its awesome complexities to those who abide by Boolean principles.  Let's hope there will always be a Galileo in the crowd.

  15. paradigmsearch profile image91
    paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago

    Unable to find responses to my last three inquiries; oh, well.

    1. couturepopcafe profile image61
      couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Some responses just do not compute.  As you are of the Boolean crowd, let me put this another way.  Many have never heard of Boolean logic and fewer understand it.  Not an argument for or against just an observation.  As for Galileo, he was thought of as 'inadequate' for his beliefs and findings in his day.    wink

    2. couturepopcafe profile image61
      couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      It's ok, paradigm.  I don't expect you to assimilate into my world any more than I can expect myself to assimilate into yours. cool

  16. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
    Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago

    I don't have to prove that a man has blonde hair in a proof that the man is a man. I just have to provide proof that he has the correct chromosome(spelling?). That information alone is enough to prove the man is a man.

    Saying that unless I also prove 'it' has blonde hair, a beard, 435 freckles, two dogs, 7 inches of manhood, and the ability to reproduce and anything less than that means the chromosome proof isn't proof, is fallacy. That is what your asking for and what I won't provide.

    Being the best by definition makes that entity the supreme being, the supreme being is a definition of the concept God. This is proven, the rest(omnipotence, creator of all, etc.) may or may not be true and we can't prove it either way... that in no way makes the proof less of a proof.

    Even if you say it does.

    1. 0
      Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      And that is another problem with your'proof'.  It's all arguable. God, by definition, would be agreed upon as being God. You say Being the best by definition makes that entity the supreme being, the supreme being is a definition of the concept God.

      If you remember correctly, the last time we discussed this; we couldn't reach a consensus on how to determine what was best. I said it was impossible and you refused to explain how you would categorize things. It's a foolish argument. Even if we both decided to work our way up to a 'best of the best' we wouldn't agree, so the thing I labeled god wouldn't be the same thing you did..

      All you are proving is that you think you have a way to thin down the possibilities of what might be able to be  agreed upon as labeled a supreme being, but only between a couple of people. It doesn't prove god.

      1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
        Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        That is because a consensus to what quality makes the best, best is irrelevant.

        and just like i said the last 4,764 times... The inability to prove that thing right over there is the best does not disprove the existence of a best.

        I have proven that a best exists, that is all that is needed.

        Again you are back to your stance of "NO!" unless you can also prove it has blonde hair, a beard, 435 freckles, two dogs, 7 inches of manhood, and the ability to reproduce then you haven't proved it is a man, and anything less than that means the chromosome proof isn't proof. Because I say so! So there!!!  hmm


        roll  Puh...leeeze...

        1. 0
          Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Umm, the 'you have to believe because I say so' argument belongs to you. You want to believe you've made a point. You don't need my permission to believe anything. I'll leave you to it. smile

    2. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
      Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      AHHhhhh alone at last...imagowatchtv... smile

      1. Jean Bakula profile image96
        Jean Bakulaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        If you follow the Seven Hermetic Laws, according to the one on polarity, every truth is half false, and every falsehood is half true.

        1. Cagsil profile image84
          Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          lol lol

        2. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
          Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Really? Can you elaborate?

          1. Jean Bakula profile image96
            Jean Bakulaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            It's from the Kybalion and the Emerald Tablet of Hermes. I had a feeling Cagsil would get a laugh from it.

  17. 0
    Wilfionposted 5 years ago

    I have always found it easier to believe something which has real evidence to back it up, rather than believing something because it makes me feel better, or something based entirely upon my subjective experience.  Because the human mind can get things terribly wrong, and has a habit of making things fit with the reality it has created for itself.  However, recent cases, where science has made a U-turn on previous understanding, makes it obvious that science is an evolving process.  For instance, after decades of medical scientists telling us that salt should not be added to food, new evidence shows that people who put salt on their food have a lower chance of having a stroke.  And it is not uncommon for different scientists using the same methods, to reach opposite conclusions. 

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/ne … 622751.stm

    1. lone77star profile image91
      lone77starposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Good point, @Wilfion. Certainly the human mind can make mistakes.

      But faith will never happen if we don't try. Being afraid because it is initially subjective will only act as a barrier. This is the child who never attempts to crawl because they cannot yet run.

      Belief is perception (effect), while true faith is creation (cause). And nothing is more objective than pure creation. All of physical reality is based upon it. All of the objective reasoning of science comes after (is subservient to) creation.

      As for health, science has become a slave of greed, brainwashed by a machine of greed. The same greed that people are revolting against on Wall Street.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnaBG177VIw
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wK1MOMKZ8BI

      And the machine is being challenged.

  18. lone77star profile image91
    lone77starposted 5 years ago

    @emrldphx, good ideas, but legislating mature discussion and good manners is an impossibility.

    Perhaps all we can hope for is to hold a public forum like this, expect anyone and everyone to crash the intelligent discussion, and for us merely to ignore the really lame and awful noise when it presents itself.

    In the meantime, thanks for opening up such a wonderful discussion.

    1. emrldphx profile image61
      emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Yeah, it makes me want to run my own forum for stuff like this... maybe I will, I've got an idea for a large project that would go along with the idea well smile

      It is possible for the mature to continue the conversation among the rest... I just wonder if it doesn't drive a lot of the people you and I would like to talk to away.

      1. 69
        paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Whenever you start a forum of your own; please do inform me. I will happily become a member to write and learn.

        1. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I, for one, wholeheartedly would promote and encourage this move. Please do all you can to action paarsurrey's request at your earliest convenience. Thank you.

  19. emrldphx profile image61
    emrldphxposted 5 years ago

    Dictionary.com

    GOD - the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.

    Since you don't seem eager to answer my question, I'll answer it for you. You stated that dictionary.com is the only place to get the correct definition for a term. You have God defined erroneously.

 
working