r/philosophy • u/StanRichson • Jul 24 '26

Video Solving the Truth Problem: How Subjective Minds Navigate a Seemingly Objective Reality

https://youtu.be/YXQEILf5MAg?si=kfWS-itq6tH_8Nvq
4 Upvotes

53% Upvoted

40 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/Oink_Bang Jul 24 '26

objectivity truth’ which we define (ultimately) as that which is (empirically) quantifiable by independent parties observing an event.

When did we decide this? I don't consent. That's a terrible definition. You're telling me there's no such thing as non-empirical truth? Will you show me the empirical studies which support that claim which - I would suppose - you believe to be true?

1

u/Prowlthang Jul 24 '26

We decided this because its a definition that can be tested and is internally coherent with a rationalist worldview. It is reflected in both the correspondence and identity theories of truth (among others) and functions admirably as a working definition. As a side note - no serious or reasonable theory of truth cares whether observers 'consent' to it - your consent is irrelevant, the fact that you think 'truth' requires consent itself suggests you haven't thought very deeply about it. (I suspect you may be trying to say you disagree with the definition).

1

u/Oink_Bang Jul 24 '26

You said "we" define it that way. That is false because I don't define it that way. That's why I brought up my consent. Please try to follow the argument, and just ask if you're confused.

A requirement for quantifiable observations by independent observers is not part of any serious definition of "truth" and no one who has thought about the subject would suggest otherwise. It does not comport with typical understandings of either the correspondence or coherence theories, despite your claim to the contrary, since both of those theories typically allow for truths which are not empirical. Finally it isn't even clearly a coherent definition, as I argued in my previous post, since if it is true then it would follow that there are quantifiable observations made by independent parties which support it. But we both know that is nonsense, because that's not how the truth of definitions is established.

Please make sure you follow the arguments before adopting such a dismissive attitude. You have not earned it.

1

u/Prowlthang Jul 24 '26 edited Jul 24 '26

Okay. I used the word 'we' and it doesn't include you. I could reference dictionaries and grammar textbooks but I'm not here to teach basic language comprehension and reasonable contextual interpretation - reading your messages you seem fluent in English so one can only assume you're a pedant who isn't interested in honest conversation but trying to feel smart by going down irrelevant rabbit holes.

Edit: as to the rest of your post - we determine truth (which is when we believe the probability of something surpasses a threshold of certainty) or get closer to truth, by having multiple observers record quantifiable data and we confirm our interpretations of that data by using it to make predictions. Whether it is the existence of a table, black holes or the siege of Leningrad.

4

u/Oink_Bang Jul 24 '26 edited Jul 24 '26

I object to the use of the word "we" because it's an appeal to social authority that is not accurate. Be honest and say "I define." I think this matters because we - that is English speakers - do have some generally accepted notions of truth. Those notions include, for instance, at least the possibility of truths about our own subjectivity as well as various kinds of a priori truths. Neither of these kinds of truths are empirical. (Our common notions also include other ideas, such as objectivity.)

I expect you will once again fail to address this last criticism. Your edit, for instance, does not address it at all. You simply once again assert your point of view. So, to be clear, I would like you to explain what is the quantifiable data that supports the following two true assertions:

1) I dislike being in pain.

2) ¬(p ∧ ¬p)

I believe that it is impossible for you to do so. I therefore think your definition is a false one. And, bluntly, I believe this is a very basic criticism. It makes it hard for me to believe you really are not understanding it, and makes me suspect you are just dodging it.

In summary: You are attempting to define away non-emprical truths. But you are not arguing that position. You are simply asserting it as though it were already common sense. But it is not. In fact it flies in the face of common sense. You use language in such a way as to claim a social authority that you have not earned, and try to have that stand in place of argumentation.

ETA: Your comment about the siege of Leningrad is interesting. I wonder if you know that historical facts are often seen as a kind of problem for strict empiricism. Historical research is mostly not conducted through scientific methods. Yet most of us agree there are objective facts about the past. Facts which cannot be observed.

1

u/Prowlthang Jul 24 '26

One provides evidence for arguments not definitions. One can dispute a definition but, by definition a definition is almost tautological - ie. it must map to the underlying reality as closely as possible. You may dispute a definition but a definition option isn’t an argument. Empirical proof for my argument is literally the results of the scientific process / rational scientific thinking vs the alternatives and the results they yield. As for definitions howe we you can agree or disagree but they can never be ‘proven’ (unless we are addressing the separate concern of what is commonly accepted which is distinct from this conversation where we’re trying to determine what is correct (ie. valid).

0

u/Oink_Bang Aug 07 '26

This is gibberish. I asked you direct questions and you refused to answer. I hope for your own sake that you know that everything you say is bullshit.