If energy can neither be created nor destroyed...

Even inter-subjectivity requires a common (objective) ground before inter-subjective agreements can arise.

No. What that means, and by that I mean that our opinions are merely our opinions, is that there is no guarantee that there is a common ground between you and every other person that you encounter.
That does not mean – it does not imply – that there is no common ground between you and every other person.

In other words, if people don’t think the way you do, and by think I mean make assumptions regarding the unknown, and if they are unwilling to change how they think, then it is impossible to make any kind of agreement with them.

You can speak meaningfully only about that which is within your experience.
Speaking about things that are outside of your experience is meaningless.

I am still waiting for you to explain to me what it means for something to be “objectively true for everyone”.
I wish you a lot of luck with that.

I don’t think that religious people, pseudo-scientists and pseudo-philosophers are truly intelligent. They aren’t exactly without intelligence but what they have is not real intelligence. It’s a degenerate form. These people think in a very backward manner. They start with a conclusion (something they consider to be unquestionable) and then they seek evidence that supports it. That’s not how people who are genuinely intelligent think.

You realize that everyone is alive on this planet and so they have that experience in common.

You’re saying that only produces opinions and not objective truth??

I am still waiting for you to explain to me what it means for something to be “objectively true for everyone”.
I am afraid you will do the exact same thing James would do i.e. you would give me a sequence of words that you feel mean something but that in reality mean nothing.
If your words have no reference to something you have previously experienced then they are only that – words – which means they are empty, meaningless.

How can I do that when you will respond that what I wrote means nothing?

See. Exactly this response.

I wrote some words in order to advance the discussion but you ignored it.

I wrote that we have a set of common experiences because we are humans living on this planet. Everyone has experienced that.

I ignored your words because I don’t think they are advancing the discussion.

This is what you said:

I don’t even understand what this means. What experience they have in common? of being alive? So what exactly are you saying? that everyone is alive and so that everyone has the experience of being alive? How is that advancing this discussion? It appears to be a tautology. I don’t deny that people have things in common. I don’t deny that one of these things they have in common is the experience of being alive.

So? How does that advance this discussion? How does that deny my statement that there are only opinions?

Let’s leave it there.

**

Then you will immediately get the old blame: “You are a subjectivist”. Philosophers should not be either subjectivists or objectivists, but should try to overcome the subject/object problem.

Science does not reference proof as that is the remit of systems of logic like mathematics and syllogisms which are
primarily deductive disciplines. Whereas evidence is the remit of science which is primarily an inductive discipline

Science has absolutely nothing to say about reality because it does not and cannot study reality. What it studies are observable
phenomena and specifically their properties. Whether such phenomena constitute reality is not a question science can answer

It is a meaningless question because if something is objectively real or true then it is completely irrelevant as to how popular it is
Something can be objectively true and be accepted by no one and equally something can be objectively false and be accepted by
everyone. All that matters is if something can be demonstrated to be objectively true. How popular it is is of no importance at all

All it takes to falsify this statement is just one counter example and here it is

It is objectively true that the Earth is a sphere. Triangulation proved this over four centuries ago and photographs from space are also evidence of this
There are those however who think that it is flat. Not everyone therefore thinks it is objectively true that is a sphere. And by your reasoning that then
cannot be objectively true. Yet it is. So something can be objectively true without it being so for everyone

What this seems to be suggesting is that whatever a person thinks is automatically true. (and also what he thinks is false is automatically false)
This does not seem to be a valid idea.

If I think that I can fly by flapping my arms then it’s true that I can.

However, the objective truth which comes from scientific calculations and observations says that a person cannot fly by flapping his arms. (the test of the truth of my statement)

The other objective truth is that I actually think that I can fly by flapping my arms. (a statement on whether I hold the belief or not). If I’m BSing then the objective truth is that I don’t believe the claim I made.

It is a meaningless question because “objectively true” is a meaningless expression.
It is people who decide what is true and what is not true. And they do so by using certain methodology (i.e. by following certain rules, if they are following any rules.)
In other words, what there is is what people THINK is true/real and WHY they think it is true/real.
Truth/reality is not something that is BEYOND what people think is true/real.
Whatever is beyond what people THINK is quite simply UNTHINKABLE and therefore MEANINGLESS.

What one thinks is true is NO MORE than what one thinks is true.
In other words, what one thinks is true IS NOT what is “objectively true” or “true independently from what one thinks is true”.
It cannot be because these expressions, taken literally, are meaningless.
On the other hand, method of induction allows us to discriminate between better and worse opinions.

The words ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ identify what thoughts are based on. Subjective thoughts are based on feelings while objective thoughts are based on observations. Subjective thoughts can’t be verified or falsified by others - a person ‘owns’ them completely. Objective thoughts are open to scrutiny. Your thoughts about the shape of the world can be right or wrong. Your thoughts about whether or not you like chocolate ice cream can’t be wrong. There is no external reference for your ice cream likes, no way to challenge your statements about it.

The words “objective” and “subjective” have several different meanings and one of them is the one that you provided.
Epistemological objectivity and subjectivity refer to two different modes, ways or patterns of forming assumptions regarding the unknown (e.g. expectations/predictions.)
Subjectivity means expecting/predicting what you want (or don’t want) to happen.
In general, it means anything other than what objectivity means.
Objectivity means expecting/predicting the smallest deviation from what was experienced in the past.
I don’t deny these. But I deny that these are anything more than PATTERNS OF REASONING.
What I deny is ontological definitions of objectivity and subjectivity.

Two different predictions regarding one and the same event can be equally objective in epistemological sense. This is not possible with ontological objectivity. Here’s an example. Suppose that both John and Mary observed swans in their past and that each one of them observed exactly 100 swans. Suppose that John observed 100 white swans while Mary observed 50 white and 50 black swans. What they want to do now is predict what color will be the next swan they observe. John will say white, Mary will say either black or white (she will claim that the specific outcome is uncertain.) Both claims are epistemologically objective because both are derived from evidence and because both are equally informed (i.e. the number of observations they are based on is equal.) If the number of observations was different and if either Mary or John had an experience that was a superset of another’s (e.g. if Mary’s observations contained all of John’s one hundred observations of white swans + some more e.g. one hundred observations of black swans) then you could say there is a viewpoint that is more epistemologically objective than the other. But as it is, this is impossible. Not to mention that it is impossible to determine what experience people have in common other than through approximation.

Once Mary shows John evidence of the existence of black swans, he will adjust his thinking accordingly.
The exact distribution of white and black swans is something studied by natural scientists. If John and Mary familiarize themselves with the research, then they will be able to make more accurate predictions. That research, if done properly, is objective truth about white and black swans.

Going beyond your own personal experience is what education and learning is all about. You can dip into a reservoir of knowledge already built by millions of people over countless years.

If you rely purely on your own experience, then you will be ignorant about most things.

Yes. The consequence would be a shared viewpoint. Not “objective truth”. But this is assuming that such a feat – showing evidence – is possible. Being a witness of a near-perfect murder would be an example when reaching agreement by showing evidence is impossible.

You can call it any way you want but that is nothing more than a shared viewpoint that is informed by other people’s research.

That would be expanding or enriching your personal experience. Provided that you properly assimilate (i.e. understand) other people’s knowledge. Otherwise it would be merely a change in your personal experience.

Either way, there is no such a thing as going beyond personal experience.

There is also such a thing as too much education. You must control the inflow of new information. Otherwise you end up being confused. More isn’t automatically better.

Yes, “objective truth” has to be “a shared viewpoint”. That’s a necessary but not sufficient requirement for objective truth. Two subjective truths can be a shared viewpoint … Mary likes chocolate ice cream and she gives John a taste and he also likes it.

Maybe you define it that way but you’re in the minority. Going to Paris and walking down the streets can be called a personal experience of Paris but reading somebody’s description of walking the streets of Paris would not be considered a personal experience of Paris. What sense would it make to equate the two?

I have noticed a strong anti-education sentiment on ILP. I find it surprising. :open_mouth: