Hello

[Xray]

Quite right, and that would be a subjective fact to them also.

What you call "subjective fact" is a person's individual convictions claims/beliefs/ etc.

Going by that logic, you would e. g. have to call a Jehovas witness' firm conviction that Jesus rose from the grave a subjective "fact" too. Would you?

Edited June 11, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Documented medical record on the effects of arsene undisputed worldwide by any scientist (who e. g. would claim arsenic not to be lethal to humans when ingested in a certain amount) - what more do you need?

Xray,

So you believe that objective means majority agreement and fact is what the majority agree on?

Michael

[Xray]

Documented medical record on the effects of arsene undisputed worldwide by any scientist (who e. g. would claim arsenic not to be lethal to humans when ingested in a certain amount) - what more do you need?

Xray,

So you believe that objective means majority agreement and fact is what the majority agree on?

Michael

No. Staying with the arsenic example, it is not a random majority vote, but the undisputed opinion of qualified experts all over the world.

Edited June 11, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

No. Staying with the arsenic example, it is not a random majority vote, but the undisputed opinion of qualified experts all over the world.

Xray,

So you believe that objective means majority agreement among experts and fact is what the majority of experts agree on?

If so, what is the objective means to distinguish an expert from a "random" person (to use your language)?

And even so, doesn't everyone by this standard need to be an expert in discerning experts in order to find the correct majorities of experts, and only thus can they be objective and obtain facts?

What if a person is not an expert in discerning experts and thus cannot identify the correct majority? Is he or she doomed to never being objective or never being in possession of facts?

And which side is objective when experts disagree? Are there no facts when that happens?

Michael

[tjohnson]

What you call "subjective fact" is a person's individual convictions claims/beliefs/ etc.

Going by that logic, you would e. g. have to call a Jehovas witness' firm conviction that Jesus rose from the grave a subjective "fact" too. Would you?

If I am colour blind and an object appears brown to me that is a fact. If it appears green to you that is also a fact. That the light has a certain wavelength is also a fact.

[Xray]

No. Staying with the arsenic example, it is not a random majority vote, but the undisputed opinion of qualified experts all over the world.

Xray,

So you believe that objective means majority agreement among experts and fact is what the majority of experts agree on?

If so, what is the objective means to distinguish an expert from a "random" person (to use your language)?

And even so, doesn't everyone by this standard need to be an expert in discerning experts in order to find the correct majorities of experts, and only thus can they be objective and obtain facts?

What if a person is not an expert in discerning experts and thus cannot identify the correct majority? Is he or she doomed to never being objective or never being in possession of facts?

And which side is objective when experts disagree? Are there no facts when that happens?

Michael

The [objective] fact exists independently of disagrement. This is the very essence of "fact".

Ayn Rand: "fact" = something which exists in reality, as distinginguished from imagination, misconception or error."

Does this definition work for you?

Edited June 12, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

[General Semanticist][if I am colour blind and an object appears brown to me that is a fact. If it appears green to you that is also a fact. That the light has a certain wavelength is also a fact.]

Thr first two sentences state the fact of the perception.

Like in:

It is a fact that people can perceive colors differently.

It is a fact that Jehova's witnesses are convined god exists.

Whereas the last sentence states a fact independently of subjective perception/belief.

Edited June 12, 2009 by Xray

[tjohnson]

Thr first two sentences state the fact of the perception.

Like in:

It is a fact that people can perceive colors differently.

It is a fact that Jehova's witnesses are convined god exists.

Whereas the last sentence states a fact independently of subjective perception/belief.

Let me rephrase my last statement. It is a fact that we perceive that the light has certain wavelength. There is nothing independent of perception/belief.

[Brant Gaede]

Head churn. No transmission fits this kind of engine. It roars, the car ignores. No trip to the shore. What a bore.

--Brant

more gas, more gas

[tjohnson]

Let me rephrase my last statement. It is a fact that we perceive that the light has certain wavelength. There is nothing independent of perception/belief.

Hmm...let me rephrase again. There are some relations that exist independent of perception/belief, like pi, but all of our science is built upon assumptions (beliefs).

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The [objective] fact exists independently of disagrement. This is the very essence of "fact".

Ayn Rand: "fact" = something which exists in reality, as distinginguished from imagination, misconception or error."

Does this definition work for you?

Xray,

I agree about fact. Facts exists whether there is human awareness of them or not.

I am not at all clear about your use of objective.

Do you believe that for something to be objective, it must be outside of human awareness?

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Let me rephrase my last statement. It is a fact that we perceive that the light has certain wavelength. There is nothing independent of perception/belief.

Hmm...let me rephrase again. There are some relations that exist independent of perception/belief, like pi, but all of our science is built upon assumptions (beliefs).

Empirically tested beliefs. Either the beliefs (underlying assumptions) are tested experimentally or their consequences (predictions) are tested experimentally. In either case, adverse experimental results vitiate the premises. It is the empirical check that keeps science honest. Checking one's premises either directly or consequentially is the essence of the hypothetical-deductive method (the so-called scientific method).

Ba'al Chatzaf

[BaalChatzaf]

Hello,

My name is Jordan O'Leary. I am 17 and live in Michigan. I attend the same school as Bradbradallen. I have been browsing Objectivist Living for a while now, and I've thoroughly enjoyed reading the debates.

I look forward to discussing and debating with you all.

Jordan

Hail and well met! Discussion of a civil and rational kind is always a good way to find out what is what. Discussion is the test bed for new ideas and a place/modality where correct theories are brought to light. During discussion, adverse empirical findings can be brought to light an incorrect hypotheses put to rest. Discussion and conversation is what differentiates us, Primate Hominid Version 4.0 from the rest of the occupants of the Monkey House.

Debate, on the other hand, does not always produce useful results. For example the Theory of Evolution has been debated since 1859 when Darwin and Wallace published their findings on the origins of and changes to species of living beings. Debate has been the occasion for irrational folks with an axe to grind deny facts and distort meanings.

Discussion - yes. Debate - probably no.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited June 12, 2009 by BaalChatzaf

[Xray]

The [objective] fact exists independently of disagrement. This is the very essence of "fact".

Ayn Rand: "fact" = something which exists in reality, as distinginguished from imagination, misconception or error."

Does this definition work for you?

Xray,

I agree about fact. Facts exists whether there is human awareness of them or not.

I am not at all clear about your use of objective.

Do you believe that for something to be objective, it must be outside of human awareness?

Michael

"Objective" is an adjective related to facts.

Example: Obama is the President of the USA. This is a statement relating to an [objective] fact.

Edited June 12, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

"Objective" is an adjective related to facts.

Xray,

I was aware of the grammar. "Subjective" is an adjective related to facts, too.

So?

What does "objective" mean to you?

That's what I am not getting from you.

Michael

[Xray]

"Objective" is an adjective related to facts.

Xray,

I was aware of the grammar. "Subjective" is an adjective related to facts, too.

So?

What does "objective" mean to you?

That's what I am not getting from you.

Michael

You already got the definition from me way back when on the Cardinal Values thread:

"Objective -: having reality independent of the mind <objective reality>...

3 a: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without

distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations (Webster's)

To argue and conclude objectively is to reach a conclusion based on the

objective facts regardless of what one prefers.

[Selene]

1> A non-objective fact is __________________.

2>An objective fact is _____________________.

Fill in the blanks.

Thanks

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You already got the definition from me way back when on the Cardinal Values thread:

"Objective -: having reality independent of the mind <objective reality>...

3 a: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without

distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations (Webster's)

To argue and conclude objectively is to reach a conclusion based on the

objective facts regardless of what one prefers.

Xray,

How does one, independent of the mind, "express or deal with facts" or "perceive without distortion" or "argue and conclude" anything?

You find doing all this independent of the mind to be objective?

Michael

[Xray]

You already got the definition from me way back when on the Cardinal Values thread:

"Objective -: having reality independent of the mind <objective reality>...

3 a: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without

distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations (Webster's)

To argue and conclude objectively is to reach a conclusion based on the

objective facts regardless of what one prefers.

Xray,

How does one, independent of the mind, "express or deal with facts" or "perceive without distortion" or "argue and conclude" anything?

You find doing all this independent of the mind to be objective?

Michael

The facts are independent of the mind, the dealing with facts is necessarily connected to mind - the very terms 'dealing' and "perceived" indicate it, referring here to mental activity regarding an issue.

The definiton of objective I quoted points out in what way the mind deals with facts:

3 a: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without

distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations (Webster's)

"To argue and conclude objectively is to reach a conclusion based on the

objective facts regardless of what one prefers." (end quote)

Example:

At a trial, suppose a juror likes the looks of the defendant and prefers that the

defendant is innocent. However, the juror sets aside personal preference and examines the evidence objectively, which leads him to the conclusion that the defendant is guilty. This example clearly illustrates what is meant by thinking "objectively": simply deciding on what is by the evidence rather than concluding on emotions and subjective personal preference.

Edited June 13, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The definiton of objective I quoted points out in what way the mind deals with facts:

3 a: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without

distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations (Webster's)

"To argue and conclude objectively is to reach a conclusion based on the

objective facts regardless of what one prefers." (end quote)

Xray,

So how does one know that he or she is not distorting perception "by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations" or by "what one prefers"?

Going further, how does one know that others are not distorting their perception "by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations" or by "what they prefer"?

So far, I have no idea how you imagine people can know what "objective" is enough to contrast it with "subjective." You keep saying what it isn't, not what it is.

Michael

[Xray]

1> A non-objective fact is __________________.

2>An objective fact is ____________________.

Fill in the blanks.

Thanks

Ask and ya shall receive:

1 > An oxymoron. There are no non-objective facts

2 > A pleonasm. "Objective" connected with fact is logically redundant, so when used by me, it is for mere reasons of stylistic emphasis.

Thanks

You're welcome.

Fill in the blanks.

Done.

Now please quote and respond to my numerous posts you have thus far evaded.

Fill in those very large blanks. Fair enough? Will you do that?

Edited June 14, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

The definiton of objective I quoted points out in what way the mind deals with facts:

3 a: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without

distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations (Webster's)

"To argue and conclude objectively is to reach a conclusion based on the

objective facts regardless of what one prefers." (end quote)

Xray,

So how does one know that he or she is not distorting perception "by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations" or by "what one prefers"?

Going further, how does one know that others are not distorting their perception "by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations" or by "what they prefer"?

So far, I have no idea how you imagine people can know what "objective" is enough to contrast it with "subjective." You keep saying what it isn't, not what it is.

Michael

Let' sum it up agan:

QUOTE (Xray @ Jun 12 2009, 01:11 AM) *

"The [objective] fact exists independently of disagrement. This is the very

essence of "fact".

Ayn Rand: "fact" = something which exists in reality, as distinginguished

from imagination, misconception or error."

Does this definition work for you?" (Xray)

Your reply:

"Xray,

I agree about fact. Facts exists whether there is human awareness of them or

not." (Michael)

QUOTE (Xray @ May 4 2009, 05:17 PM) # 154 (Cardinal Values thread)

"To argue and conclude objectively is to reach a conclusion based on the objective facts regardless of what one prefers." (Xray)

Your answer:

Xray,

"We are in full agreement on this. Please understand that when I use the term "objective," it is always within this orbit of meaning." (Michael)

So you agreed on both these points with me. So why don't we take it from there?

Sure one can argue endlessly about whether people know they are being biased when they think they are unprejudiced but aren't.

We can also carry this discussion into into the fuzzy realm of "How Real is Reality" , and when you e. g. ask me "How do you know there is snow in Alaska or that there is a sewer system below some of the streets of New York City?" - no I wasn't there to see for myself. Were you? If not, how do you know?

Fact is not only that which one has to have personally experienced and/or evaluated as fact as opposed to assumed to be fact.

In many fields, we are not personally aware of certain fact by direct experience. In such cases, we often rely upon the alleged experience and claims of others to evaluate as fact of fiction. If I have no information and knowledge by which to refute the alleged facts, I have no basis to denounce them as non fact.

This refers to vast array of items including medical diagnosis, machinediagnostic tests, the physiology of a human body, current and historical

events, declarations involving quantum mechanics, micro biology, on and on and on. Perhaps, the better terminology would be assumed to be fact based on

such and such data. Even though this is the more accurate terminology, everyday, billions of individuals act upon what is believed to be fact derived

from direct and indirect teaching as opposed to direct knowledge and experience in each of the given fields.

By what criteria do you propose to define the term, objective? I gave you mine. If you would please now present your usage and the why of it. TIA.

If you imagine my usage to be incorrect or incomplete, please provide what you think is the correct usage so we can compare notes and agree on a common ground which will work for both of us to make headway in the discussion.

Edited June 14, 2009 by Xray

[Rich Engle]

Man, always with the questions. How much is enough to get by?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

By what criteria do you propose to define the term, objective? I gave you mine.

Xray,

No you didn't. You told me what objective wasn't over and over. And gave several examples as if they were definitions.

From everything you have stated, I cannot discern any fundamental difference between your use of objective and subjective, other than what you say objective isn't. Even your "consensus by experts" meaning falls into subjectivity when you change the experts.

Do you have a positive meaning for objective other than "consensus by experts," or is it only limited to negative claims and majority vote?

Michael