The truth is objective

[Iwannaplato]

It means that it does not depend on people's opinions or beliefs.

OK, thanks. I understand your intentions better after the explanations.

The truth may not depend on people's opinions or beliefs, but what gets called 'the truth' does.
So, the question is 'do we have access to the truth or to what gets called the truth?' some of which may be the truth. Aren't we always dealing with what may be the truth and we or someone is calling the truth?

Here in situ, in all practicality. or?

So, we have this category: The Truth. The one that is objective and perfect. But where is that set of objectively true statements and how do we recognize it?

As annoying as it might be, perhaps especially to me LOL, VA in his clumsy way is reacting similarly.

That perfect shining category, The Truth, is transcendent. Yes, many things we believe are true or it is our opinion is The Truth, may well be in that shining Platonic category but where do we download that list to check and see?

[bahman]

It means that it does not depend on people's opinions or beliefs.

OK, thanks. I understand your intentions better after the explanations.

The truth may not depend on people's opinions or beliefs, but what gets called 'the truth' does.

What does the truth do? Think of the metaphysical principles. They are like a guide that helps us to establish a proper scientific idea for example. Some people believe in the cyclic universe not being aware that it leads to infinite regress. The infinite regress is not acceptable so working on theories that lead to infinite regress is a waste of time.

So, the question is 'do we have access to the truth or to what gets called the truth?' some of which may be the truth.

Yes, we have access to them. For example, the infinite regress is not acceptable, or you cannot make a perfect theory from an imperfect measurement. I am sure that there are more objectively true statements, but these are what I recall now.

Aren't we always dealing with what may be the truth and we or someone is calling the truth?

We have to deal with them in all philosophical discussions. Any philosophical discussion that does not respect the truth is a waste of time.

Here in situ, in all practicality. or?

What do you mean?

So, we have this category: The Truth. The one that is objective and perfect. But where is that set of objectively true statements and how do we recognize it?

Some through the discussion like infinite regress are not acceptable and some are obvious like all bachelors are unmarried.

As annoying as it might be, perhaps especially to me LOL, VA in his clumsy way is reacting similarly.

That perfect shining category, The Truth, is transcendent. Yes, many things we believe are true or it is our opinion is The Truth, may well be in that shining Platonic category but where do we download that list to check and see?

We have to try hard to build them.

[LuckyR]

.........
He will go way beyond ice cream flavours if you push him. He has gone on record to claim that Miss World competitions directly measure beauty, to the extent that they are authorative and scientific investigations thereof. He doens't like being told that Pornhub has enormously more data than Miss World and should therefore be classified as a scientific tool.

To my mind, the problem you describe is one of laziness in not taking the time and effort to add the "qualifiers" that delineate the boundaries of objectivity of inherently subjective comments (such as Miss World is beautiful). Their absence leads to erroneous generalities being drawn.

Don't simply trust FDP the serial liar.
It is a lie 'deliberately' based on some childish 'hate' he had on me.
I have NEVER claimed, the
"Miss World competitions directly measure beauty, to the extent that they are authoritative and scientific investigations thereof."

My claim is as always, the Miss World competition measures beauty objectively in one sense [perspective] as qualified to the rules of the "Miss-World-FSK" constituted by the Miss-World Organization, https://www.missworld.com/

What is scientific authority is conditioned upon the scientific-FSK which has nothing authoritative to do with the "Miss-World-FSK" except they are both FSK.

My point is 'beauty' can be objectified as long as it is imperatively qualified upon a specific human-based FSK.
As such, that 'So and So' is 'Miss Word Year 202?', i.e. the most beautify women in the year 202? [objectively] must be qualified to the conditions of the "Miss-World-FSK". It cannot be an unqualified statement.

FSK-ed Objectivity comes in degrees within a continuum with the scientific FSK as the standard at present, and so is given 100/100 index.
Off hand, because beauty competitions are very subjective, the FSK and so the degrees of objectivity would be likely at the lower end of the continuum, something like 20/100.

I disagree. Despite having a set of (objective sounding to the layman) criteria for ranking contestants, those criteria are applied subjectively. Hence the need for a panel of judges, instead of a single referee.

Though it is a cultural error to assume that objective measures are "superior" to subjective ones. After all for many if not most, we have to do objectively quantified things for work but choose to do subjectively measured things for fun.

[Iwannaplato]

What does the truth do? Think of the metaphysical principles. They are like a guide that helps us to establish a proper scientific idea for example. Some people believe in the cyclic universe not being aware that it leads to infinite regress. The infinite regress is not acceptable so working on theories that lead to infinite regress is a waste of time.

Unless you're wrong. Metaphysicians (and scientists) have come up with many ideas that seemed logical, true, necessary...and then they found out they were wrong.

Yes, we have access to them. For example, the infinite regress is not acceptable, or you cannot make a perfect theory from an imperfect measurement. I am sure that there are more objectively true statements, but these are what I recall now.

Unless you're mistaken. Perhaps your deductions have assumptions you're not aware of. We're fallible.

Aren't we always dealing with what may be the truth and we or someone is calling the truth?

We have to deal with them in all philosophical discussions. Any philosophical discussion that does not respect the truth is a waste of time.

You're missing my point. We have what we call truth, what we believe is the true, but we may be wrong.

Here in situ, in all practicality. or?

What do you mean?

Here where we have limited knowledge, are fallible, have specific nervous systems that lead us to certain kinds of metaphors, analogies and metaphysics (iow biases). Where what we think is the truth might not be.

Some through the discussion like infinite regress are not acceptable and some are obvious like all bachelors are unmarried.

Heck, we could be in a simulation and in fact there are no bachelors or what seems logical and an analytic truth actually isn't. We have beliefs and opinions and we try to arrive at them with various methodologies and make them rigorous (those who do). But even what we think just must be true might be in error.

We have to try hard to build them.

Try is the key word. And since, in the end, we will evaluate the evidence, the logic, the semantices of these statements we hope are truth, we have solid access to what we believe is true.

[bahman]

What does the truth do? Think of the metaphysical principles. They are like a guide that helps us to establish a proper scientific idea for example. Some people believe in the cyclic universe not being aware that it leads to infinite regress. The infinite regress is not acceptable so working on theories that lead to infinite regress is a waste of time.

Unless you're wrong. Metaphysicians (and scientists) have come up with many ideas that seemed logical, true, necessary...and then they found out they were wrong.

Yes, we have access to them. For example, the infinite regress is not acceptable, or you cannot make a perfect theory from an imperfect measurement. I am sure that there are more objectively true statements, but these are what I recall now.

Unless you're mistaken. Perhaps your deductions have assumptions you're not aware of. We're fallible.

Aren't we always dealing with what may be the truth and we or someone is calling the truth?

We have to deal with them in all philosophical discussions. Any philosophical discussion that does not respect the truth is a waste of time.

You're missing my point. We have what we call truth, what we believe is the true, but we may be wrong.

Here in situ, in all practicality. or?

What do you mean?

Here where we have limited knowledge, are fallible, have specific nervous systems that lead us to certain kinds of metaphors, analogies and metaphysics (iow biases). Where what we think is the truth might not be.

Some through the discussion like infinite regress are not acceptable and some are obvious like all bachelors are unmarried.

Heck, we could be in a simulation and in fact there are no bachelors or what seems logical and an analytic truth actually isn't. We have beliefs and opinions and we try to arrive at them with various methodologies and make them rigorous (those who do). But even what we think just must be true might be in error.

We have to try hard to build them.

Try is the key word. And since, in the end, we will evaluate the evidence, the logic, the semantices of these statements we hope are truth, we have solid access to what we believe is true.

Yes, we might be wrong but we are sure making progress. The point is to think of ideas, be open that they might be wrong, and discuss them.

[Veritas Aequitas]

To my mind, the problem you describe is one of laziness in not taking the time and effort to add the "qualifiers" that delineate the boundaries of objectivity of inherently subjective comments (such as Miss World is beautiful). Their absence leads to erroneous generalities being drawn.

Don't simply trust FDP the serial liar.
It is a lie 'deliberately' based on some childish 'hate' he had on me.
I have NEVER claimed, the
"Miss World competitions directly measure beauty, to the extent that they are authoritative and scientific investigations thereof."

My claim is as always, the Miss World competition measures beauty objectively in one sense [perspective] as qualified to the rules of the "Miss-World-FSK" constituted by the Miss-World Organization, https://www.missworld.com/

What is scientific authority is conditioned upon the scientific-FSK which has nothing authoritative to do with the "Miss-World-FSK" except they are both FSK.

My point is 'beauty' can be objectified as long as it is imperatively qualified upon a specific human-based FSK.
As such, that 'So and So' is 'Miss Word Year 202?', i.e. the most beautify women in the year 202? [objectively] must be qualified to the conditions of the "Miss-World-FSK". It cannot be an unqualified statement.

FSK-ed Objectivity comes in degrees within a continuum with the scientific FSK as the standard at present, and so is given 100/100 index.
Off hand, because beauty competitions are very subjective, the FSK and so the degrees of objectivity would be likely at the lower end of the continuum, something like 20/100.

I disagree. Despite having a set of (objective sounding to the layman) criteria for ranking contestants, those criteria are applied subjectively. Hence the need for a panel of judges, instead of a single referee.

Though it is a cultural error to assume that objective measures are "superior" to subjective ones. After all for many if not most, we have to do objectively quantified things for work but choose to do subjectively measured things for fun.

What is objective is represented by facts.

Do you deny all scientific facts and truths are not objective?
All scientific facts are generated within the scientific FSK which is "applied" and processed subjectively, i.e. intersubjectively or via a collective-of-subjects, in compliance with the 'conditions' of the scientific framework and systems, e.g. scientific method, etc.

Here's ChatGpt's [with reservations] view:

As of my last knowledge update in January 2022, Toni-Ann Singh being Miss World 2019 is a fact. However, it's important to note that facts can change over time.

You're correct in highlighting the role of the Miss World Organization as a Framework and System of Knowledge (FSK) in organizing and defining beauty pageants. Beauty standards, judging criteria, and the concept of beauty itself can indeed be influenced by societal, cultural, and organizational frameworks. While individual perceptions of beauty may be subjective, within the context of a specific pageant or organization, there are often defined criteria and standards that contribute to the objectification of beauty within that framework.

You also cannot deny all the results of winners from the Olympics and World Championship relating diving, gymnastics, ice-skating and other sports which are decided by a panel of judges, are facts, thus FSK-ed objective.

Though it is a cultural error to assume that objective measures are "superior" to subjective ones.

Obviously whatever is objective is "superior" to subjective ones in terms of credibility.
What is objective must be qualified to a FSK.
So a FSK-ed objective fact is more superior to subjective opinions, beliefs, judgments by an individual subjects or a loose groups of subjects [by a vote of hands].

My point is,
as long as a proposition is FSK-ed, it is objective, albeit of varying degrees of objectivity subject to the credibility of the specific FSK.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It means that it does not depend on people's opinions or beliefs.

The truth may not depend on people's opinions or beliefs, but what gets called 'the truth' does.
So, the question is 'do we have access to the truth or to what gets called the truth?' some of which may be the truth. Aren't we always dealing with what may be the truth and we or someone is calling the truth?

Here in situ, in all practicality. or?

So, we have this category: The Truth. The one that is objective and perfect. But where is that set of objectively true statements and how do we recognize it?

As annoying as it might be, perhaps especially to me LOL, VA in his clumsy way is reacting similarly.

That perfect shining category, The Truth, is transcendent. Yes, many things we believe are true or it is our opinion is The Truth, may well be in that shining Platonic category but where do we download that list to check and see?

Similar to what?

I have never agreed with 'The Truth' with capital "T" and is transcendent.

As I had stated many times,
Whatever is true [truth], factual, knowledge and objective must be conditioned upon a specific human-based FSK.

That "Toni-Ann Singh is Miss World 2019" is true, a FSK-ed truth that must be qualified to the Miss-World-FSK. This is an undeniable truth [as qualified].

[Iwannaplato]

This is an undeniable truth [as qualified].

It's ok with me if you don't understand how I was agreeing with you in this thread. But for your own sake read that sentence a few times and mull if it might be better to leave out the first adjective.

[LuckyR]

Don't simply trust FDP the serial liar.
It is a lie 'deliberately' based on some childish 'hate' he had on me.
I have NEVER claimed, the
"Miss World competitions directly measure beauty, to the extent that they are authoritative and scientific investigations thereof."

My claim is as always, the Miss World competition measures beauty objectively in one sense [perspective] as qualified to the rules of the "Miss-World-FSK" constituted by the Miss-World Organization, https://www.missworld.com/

What is scientific authority is conditioned upon the scientific-FSK which has nothing authoritative to do with the "Miss-World-FSK" except they are both FSK.

My point is 'beauty' can be objectified as long as it is imperatively qualified upon a specific human-based FSK.
As such, that 'So and So' is 'Miss Word Year 202?', i.e. the most beautify women in the year 202? [objectively] must be qualified to the conditions of the "Miss-World-FSK". It cannot be an unqualified statement.

FSK-ed Objectivity comes in degrees within a continuum with the scientific FSK as the standard at present, and so is given 100/100 index.
Off hand, because beauty competitions are very subjective, the FSK and so the degrees of objectivity would be likely at the lower end of the continuum, something like 20/100.

I disagree. Despite having a set of (objective sounding to the layman) criteria for ranking contestants, those criteria are applied subjectively. Hence the need for a panel of judges, instead of a single referee.

Though it is a cultural error to assume that objective measures are "superior" to subjective ones. After all for many if not most, we have to do objectively quantified things for work but choose to do subjectively measured things for fun.

What is objective is represented by facts.

Do you deny all scientific facts and truths are not objective?
All scientific facts are generated within the scientific FSK which is "applied" and processed subjectively, i.e. intersubjectively or via a collective-of-subjects, in compliance with the 'conditions' of the scientific framework and systems, e.g. scientific method, etc.

Here's ChatGpt's [with reservations] view:

As of my last knowledge update in January 2022, Toni-Ann Singh being Miss World 2019 is a fact. However, it's important to note that facts can change over time.

You're correct in highlighting the role of the Miss World Organization as a Framework and System of Knowledge (FSK) in organizing and defining beauty pageants. Beauty standards, judging criteria, and the concept of beauty itself can indeed be influenced by societal, cultural, and organizational frameworks. While individual perceptions of beauty may be subjective, within the context of a specific pageant or organization, there are often defined criteria and standards that contribute to the objectification of beauty within that framework.

You also cannot deny all the results of winners from the Olympics and World Championship relating diving, gymnastics, ice-skating and other sports which are decided by a panel of judges, are facts, thus FSK-ed objective.

Though it is a cultural error to assume that objective measures are "superior" to subjective ones.

Obviously whatever is objective is "superior" to subjective ones in terms of credibility.
What is objective must be qualified to a FSK.
So a FSK-ed objective fact is more superior to subjective opinions, beliefs, judgments by an individual subjects or a loose groups of subjects [by a vote of hands].

My point is,
as long as a proposition is FSK-ed, it is objective, albeit of varying degrees of objectivity subject to the credibility of the specific FSK.

The fact that someone won a gold medal in a judged sport is an objective truth. How the winner was determined is by definition subjective, ie it was the opinion or judgement of the panel of judges that determines their score. Not a tally of points or a measurement of distance or time, which would be examples of objective measures.

The fact that the judges have a set of criteria on which to make judgements does not change the reality that the application of the criteria is subjective. If it were objective all of the judges would come to the same score. In fact the judging body acknowledges that their judgements are subjective by throwing out the highest and lowest scores and averaging the rest because they know that judges from the country of a contestant will subjectively raise the scores of their countrymen and lower those of their rivals.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I disagree. Despite having a set of (objective sounding to the layman) criteria for ranking contestants, those criteria are applied subjectively. Hence the need for a panel of judges, instead of a single referee.

Though it is a cultural error to assume that objective measures are "superior" to subjective ones. After all for many if not most, we have to do objectively quantified things for work but choose to do subjectively measured things for fun.

What is objective is represented by facts.

Do you deny all scientific facts and truths are not objective?
All scientific facts are generated within the scientific FSK which is "applied" and processed subjectively, i.e. intersubjectively or via a collective-of-subjects, in compliance with the 'conditions' of the scientific framework and systems, e.g. scientific method, etc.

Here's ChatGpt's [with reservations] view:

As of my last knowledge update in January 2022, Toni-Ann Singh being Miss World 2019 is a fact. However, it's important to note that facts can change over time.

You're correct in highlighting the role of the Miss World Organization as a Framework and System of Knowledge (FSK) in organizing and defining beauty pageants. Beauty standards, judging criteria, and the concept of beauty itself can indeed be influenced by societal, cultural, and organizational frameworks. While individual perceptions of beauty may be subjective, within the context of a specific pageant or organization, there are often defined criteria and standards that contribute to the objectification of beauty within that framework.

You also cannot deny all the results of winners from the Olympics and World Championship relating diving, gymnastics, ice-skating and other sports which are decided by a panel of judges, are facts, thus FSK-ed objective.

Though it is a cultural error to assume that objective measures are "superior" to subjective ones.

Obviously whatever is objective is "superior" to subjective ones in terms of credibility.
What is objective must be qualified to a FSK.
So a FSK-ed objective fact is more superior to subjective opinions, beliefs, judgments by an individual subjects or a loose groups of subjects [by a vote of hands].

My point is,
as long as a proposition is FSK-ed, it is objective, albeit of varying degrees of objectivity subject to the credibility of the specific FSK.

The fact that someone won a gold medal in a judged sport is an objective truth. How the winner was determined is by definition subjective, ie it was the opinion or judgement of the panel of judges that determines their score. Not a tally of points or a measurement of distance or time, which would be examples of objective measures.

The fact that the judges have a set of criteria on which to make judgements does not change the reality that the application of the criteria is subjective. If it were objective all of the judges would come to the same score. In fact the judging body acknowledges that their judgements are subjective by throwing out the highest and lowest scores and averaging the rest because they know that judges from the country of a contestant will subjectively raise the scores of their countrymen and lower those of their rivals.

Even within science, not all measures result in the "same scores" from the same scientists or from different scientists on the same project or thesis.
Many scientific theories are inferred from regression analysis, i.e. the line of best fit and therefrom scientific principles or facts are derived. [do I need to enlighten you on this? see below].

That is no difference from a panel of judges give different scores in sports and arts.
It is just that the scientific method is more rigorous thus generating a higher level of confidence on the resultant objectivity.

My point is all objectivity are reducible to subjectivity, i.e. a collective-of-subjects.
Show me any exceptions?

https://news.mit.edu/sites/default/file ... k=xksoTT8q

[FlashDangerpants]

My point is,
as long as a proposition is FSK-ed, it is objective, albeit of varying degrees of objectivity subject to the credibility of the specific FSK.

The fact that someone won a gold medal in a judged sport is an objective truth. How the winner was determined is by definition subjective, ie it was the opinion or judgement of the panel of judges that determines their score. Not a tally of points or a measurement of distance or time, which would be examples of objective measures.

The fact that the judges have a set of criteria on which to make judgements does not change the reality that the application of the criteria is subjective. If it were objective all of the judges would come to the same score. In fact the judging body acknowledges that their judgements are subjective by throwing out the highest and lowest scores and averaging the rest because they know that judges from the country of a contestant will subjectively raise the scores of their countrymen and lower those of their rivals.

VA isn't going to understand your objection when you write it in those terms.

He isn't really bright enough to understand his own ideas in these terms, but that single sentence from VA above describes his actual method. For him, the difference between objective and subjective is just a matter of degree. He can't consistently say degrees of what, but at any given time he will make something up to fill that gap and call it credibility, a hybrid property that is both quantitive and qualitative, so he uses whichever of those aspects he needs in the moment. Ultimately, his idea is that objectivity for any sort of claim at all is just a matter of how many people are how confident. From that, because he has an irrational obsession with sorting things into hierarchical orders, he gets his FSK theory in which anything at all can be converted into objective information by creating a method of making lists abouts it.

Your response goes sideways to that because you appear to be taking it for granted that between objectivity and subjectivity there is a difference of type. The way I tend to describe that is that objective information is checked by looking at some object in the world, and subjective information is validated, in so far as it can be, by introspection.

For VA, if two people are doing introspection about the same thing, that shared subjectivity is actually "intersubjectivity" which he imagines is the same as objectivity in a limited degree because he thinks the only thing that stands between subjectivity and objectivity is the question of how many people hold the subjective belief. If you don't think the same, may I be the first to welcome you to the "philosophical gnat" club.

[Iwannaplato]

The truth is the set of statements each is true. Therefore, the truth is objective.

It is because you, your father, mother, relatives, wife, girlfriend said so?

With more reflective and rigorous thinking,

And here we have an example of condescension and rude tone. Notice that bahman did nothing of the sort in his OP, nothing directed at VA nor at people in general.

[iambiguous]

Just out of curiosity, the truth about what in particular?

[bahman]

The truth is the set of statements each is true. Therefore, the truth is objective.

It is because you, your father, mother, relatives, wife, girlfriend said so?

With more reflective and rigorous thinking,

And here we have an example of condescension and rude tone. Notice that bahman did nothing of the sort in his OP, nothing directed at VA nor at people in general.

It is alright. I will bite him later as a sign of revenge.

[bahman]

Just out of curiosity, the truth about what in particular?

About everything that the truth applies to.