Big Bird and the Belief that All Beliefs are Equally Improbable

antiskeptic

oscarBravo wrote: »

You're describing subjectivity. I thought we were talking about objective reality.

We were. And you were going to tell me why a consensus view would objectivize a your solo subjective view - outside it being your subjective view that it achieves such a thing.


Wouldn't you have to be right in your subjective view as to the value of the consensus view?


Me, I don't see how a subjective view can pull itself up by it's bootstraps so as to produce an objective view. What it can do, is to provide you with more confidence that your subjective view is indeed accurately detecting the objective reality. That confidence too is subjective (i.e. it stems out of yourself / you decide to assign the consensus view with authority over your own view) though.

You are, as I say, on your own. There is no authority outside yourself you can defer to - since it is your choice and assessments which would be doing the deferring and assigning the authority

oscarBravo

antiskeptic wrote: »

Me, I don't see how a subjective view can pull itself up by it's bootstraps so as to produce an objective view.

So how do you define objective reality?

antiskeptic

oscarBravo wrote: »

So how do you define objective reality?

That which is, irrespective of our subjective assessments of it. Worthwhile defining subjective too.

Subjective: the solo view. It might correctly detect the objective. Or it might not.

Point is: it is up to us alone to decide. Whether we decide our solo view is correct. Or we decide our solo view might be incorrect and take the solo decision that deferring to others would help us.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

oscarBravo wrote: »

So how do you define objective reality?

That which is, irrespective of our subjective assessments of it. Worthwhile defining subjective too.

Who gives you the authority to define objective reality like that?

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

Who gives you the authority to define objective reality like that?

No one. If we're to talk about it we might as well define it though

And if the definition is agreeable to someone then we can proceed. If not then they are welcome to have a stab themselves

oscarBravo

antiskeptic wrote: »

That which is, irrespective of our subjective assessments of it.

How do you know what is? What assessment can you make, other than your subjective one?

antiskeptic

oscarBravo wrote: »

How do you know what is? What assessment can you make, other than your subjective one?

Firstly, are we in agreement as to what objective reality is: that reality which is independent of what we might make of it?

Whether we can know anything about it is a secondary question.

-

What assessment can you make, other than your subjective one?

It would be a subjective (i.e. solo) decision of yours, for instance, that a consensus view better enables you to know what the objective reality is.

oscarBravo

antiskeptic wrote: »

Firstly, are we in agreement as to what objective reality is: that reality which is independent of what we might make of it?

Sure.

Whether we can know anything about it is a secondary question.

Well, let's take an example. The north pole of a magnet will tend to repel the north pole of another magnet. This happens whether I believe it will, or whether you believe it will, or whether or not either of us ever bothers to experiment with magnets. Is this objectively true?

Peregrinus

oscarBravo wrote: »

Sure. Well, let's take an example. The north pole of a magnet will tend to repel the north pole of another magnet. This happens whether I believe it will, or whether you believe it will, or whether or not either of us ever bothers to experiment with magnets. Is this objectively true?

The question antiskeptic raises is not whether this is objectively true, but whether we can know that this is objectively true.

oscarBravo

Peregrinus wrote: »

The question antiskeptic raises is not whether this is objectively true, but whether we can know that this is objectively true.

Which leads neatly in turn to the question of whether we can know that anything is objectively true.

If the argument is that we can't know what is objectively true, then there is no basis for rational discussion between subjective beings. And yet, antiskeptic and I appear to be having what has, so far, been a reasonably rational discussion, which suggests that there's some hope for at least the concept of knowable objective reality.

We're interacting through this website, which tends to imply that we both accept that it exists (setting aside for the moment the question of what "existence" means for a website). Given that we can both observe it, we have arrived at sufficient consensus as to its objective reality to be able to use it as a means of communication.

robindch

oscarBravo wrote: »

Which leads neatly in turn to the question of whether we can know that anything is objectively true.

In antiskeptic's universe, nope, you can't. And therefore, every belief is epistemologically equivalent to every other one and therefore, god can be said to exist with the same force as one can say that gravity exists.

Unfortunately, the same nihilistic logic leads one to conclude that leprechauns are as likely to exist as gravity, so the conclusion isn't quite as useful as it might, at first, appear.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

Who gives you the authority to define objective reality like that?

No one.

So why are you assuming the right to define it? It's that, well, quite presumptuous?

oscarBravo

robindch wrote: »

In antiskeptic's universe, nope, you can't. And therefore, every belief is epistemologically equivalent to every other one and therefore, god can be said to exist with the same force as one can say that gravity exists.

...or, for argument's sake, that the north poles of magnets mutually attract.

Now, I can play with two magnets and find out that they behave in a particular way when I observe them. You can do the same, as can antiskeptic. When all our observations coincide, my argument is that we have a consensus that the behaviour of magnets is objectively real.

This consensus view is one that antiskeptic has rejected. I'm proposing that it has the merit of utility - by arriving at a consensus as to what is objectively real, we can have rational discussions about that reality. That makes consensus useful. What I'd like to know is, what working definition of objective reality can antiskeptic suggest that offers equal, or greater, utility?

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

So why are you assuming the right to define it? It's that, well, quite presumptuous?

Since OscarBravo, one who has taken up the discussion, agrees with me for the purposes of discusson, this point is moot.

antiskeptic

oscarBravo wrote: »

...or, for argument's sake, that the north poles of magnets mutually attract.

Now, I can play with two magnets and find out that they behave in a particular way when I observe them. You can do the same, as can antiskeptic. When all our observations coincide, my argument is that we have a consensus that the behaviour of magnets is objectively real.

That there is consensus that the behaviour of the magnets is objectively real doesn't mean their behaviour is it objectively real. There was a consensus once that the world was flat.

Your argument, at root, is that you have decided that consensus gives you more confidence as to objectivety. More confidence that you would have from a solo observation. Which is fine - we do what we reckon best given our limitations.

That decision of yours* though (i.e
consensus lends me greater confidence) is a subjective one.

*and mine oft times

If you are happy that a subjective decision of yours leads to greater confidence as to objectivity, why cannot a subjective decision of mine lead me to greater confidence than the consensus view provides in the matter of God's reality. Its a personal assessment at the end of the day.


We would both assessing our subjective perceptions and declaring on the need, or otherwise, for additional, external support.

If I/you percieve it as necessary, then seek it we do. If not, not. We remain the final arbitrators of our need.

This consensus view is one that antiskeptic has rejected.

Not so - I spent today with any number of contractors regarding an engineering problem I would be in trouble with were I to attempt to solve it on my own.

What I reject is the view that the import you subjectively assign to the consensus view exceeds the import I subjectively give to not following the consensus view.

In so far as you or I find the consensus view useful (insofar as we find it raises our individual confidence as to reality) then by all means deploy it. But equally, if we figure it has no use, or indeed is counter productive, then dispense with it.

Ultimately we ourselves decide when our subjective view needs such an outside aid or not. Indeed and ironically, in deciding that we need such an outside aid, we are declaring our subjectively concluding ourselves to be in need, as a correct conclusion!


If we can correctly conclude our propensity to subjectively err (such as to require outside assistance) we can also correctly conclude we are capable of not-error. Both require us to suppose our subjective judgement correct.

We are, ultimately, on our own. Our subjective decisions are always the root judges. I need to refer externally / I need not refer externally.

I'm proposing that it has the merit of utility - by arriving at a consensus as to what is objectively real, we can have rational discussions about that reality. That makes consensus useful. What I'd like to know is, what working definition of objective reality can antiskeptic suggest that offers equal, or greater, utility?

I can have rational discussions with people who have had similar experiences to me. That I can't have the population-wide breath of discussion with people about God, in the way I might about magnets doesn't disturb me greatly. I mean, my Dad was tone deaf and I could not share music with him.

You utility is a very personal thing. It is not any kind of killer argument.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

Since OscarBravo, one who has taken up the discussion, agrees with me for the purposes of discusson, this point is moot.

OscarBravo speaks for himself/herself.

So since you agree that nobody has given you the right to define what it is, why are you assuming the right to define it?

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

OscarBravo speaks for himself/herself.

We speak for ourselves

So since you agree that nobody has given you the right to define what it is, why are you assuming the right to define it?

Do I need a right to define it? Who has the right to require me to have such a right. And where did they obtain that right?

oscarBravo

antiskeptic wrote: »

That there is consensus that the behaviour of the magnets is objectively real doesn't mean their behaviour is it objectively real.

What would make their behaviour objectively real?

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

Do I need a right to define it? Who has the right to require me to have such a right. And where did they obtain that right?

Well, yes, you do - if you don't have a right to define something, then you're just defining it yourself. That means that whatever it is you're talking about is subjective from your perspective.

Applying a subjective view of an objective reality can only result in a subjective view.

So in your world, where you get to define things as you want, there can never be an objective description of an objective reality. It's subjectivity all the way down.

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

It's subjectivity all the way down.

Indeed. Whatever objectivity I (or you) decide there is stems from personal confidence that it is so.

Whether that confidence is in one's solo subjective perception

Or whether that confidence is in one's solo subjective decision to incorporate the views of others.

Whatever floats your boat... as it were

antiskeptic

oscarBravo wrote: »

What would make their behaviour objectively real?

Their behaviour is what it it. See above for the problem of our deciding what their behaviour is. Subjective all the way down.

There is nothing, bar personal confidence, to appeal to that their behaviour is objective.

We believe its objective. Hence your faith in empiricism just that: a personal subjective decision that empirical ways lead to objectivity.

oscarBravo

antiskeptic wrote: »

Their behaviour is what it it. See above for the problem of our deciding what their behaviour is. Subjective all the way down.

There is nothing, bar personal confidence, to appeal to that their behaviour is objective.

We believe its objective. Hence your faith in empiricism just that: a personal subjective decision that empirical ways lead to objectivity.

By which solipsistic reasoning, it's impossible for anyone to ever be wrong about anything.

If I claim that north magnetic poles attract each other, I'm not wrong: I just have a different subjective experience to literally everyone else.

You mentioned earlier the alleged consensus that the world was flat: there are people today who believe that the world is flat. Your argument is that they're not wrong; they just have a different subjective experience of the world.

If every belief is equally valid - even the really, really stupid ones - then every belief is equally invalid.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

Indeed. Whatever objectivity I (or you) decide there is stems from personal confidence that it is so.

So you agree that, in your world, there's no such thing as objectivity and hence, no such thing as objective truth or objective reality.

Grand so.

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

So you agree that, in your world, there's no such thing as objectivity and hence, no such thing as objective truth or objective reality.

Grand so.

You'd have to go back to the definition you said I had no right to define in order to see why your conclusions are insufficient.

Its disturbing to see your ducking the question as to why I need a right to define objective .. only for you to plunge in leading with the word whose definition is so very problematic for you.

Consider our intercourse over in this thread, robindch. I don't much like your bait and switch style

antiskeptic

oscarBravo wrote: »

By which solipsistic reasoning, it's impossible for anyone to ever be wrong about anything.

If I claim that north magnetic poles attract each other, I'm not wrong: I just have a different subjective experience to literally everyone else.

You mentioned earlier the alleged consensus that the world was flat: there are people today who believe that the world is flat. Your argument is that they're not wrong; they just have a different subjective experience of the world.

If every belief is equally valid - even the really, really stupid ones - then every belief is equally invalid.

You seem to be evading the problem. You might not like the conclusion presented to you via argument. If you think the argument is faulty then by all means say how.

I'm not really interested in chasing down all this handwaving.

How do you extract objective (remember our definition: what is irrespective of what we might conclude) from your own subjective decision to defer to consensus?

Bannasidhe

antiskeptic wrote: »

You'd have to go back to the definition you said I had no right to define in order to see why your conclusions are insufficient.

Its disturbing to see your ducking the question as to why I need a right to define objective .. only for you to plunge in leading with the word whose definition is so very problematic for you.

Consider yourself excluded from this discussion robindch. I don't much like your shouting from the gallery style

MOD
Consider yourself carded for backseat modding antiskeptic. The deal is clear, in this thread you will not be sanctioned for discussing a topic that has been deemed soapboxing. That is the one and only concession extended.
Every other part of the Charter still applies. As does the rule about not discussing moderation in thread.

antiskeptic

Bannasidhe wrote: »

MOD
Consider yourself carded for backseat modding antiskeptic. The deal is clear, in this thread you will not be sanctioned for discussing a topic that has been deemed soapboxing. That is the one and only concession extended.
Every other part of the Charter still applies. As does the rule about not discussing moderation in thread.

Apologies. Post edited to better reflect the option open to me.

Bannasidhe

antiskeptic wrote: »

Apologies. Post edited to better reflect the option open to me.

MOD
I am not sure what you think you will achieve by blatantly flaunting the rules and deliberately attracting mod attention - perhaps you seek martyrdom?
What ever your reasoning you know it is a boards.ie wide rule that moderation is never discussed in thread and doing so will be sanctioned.
You were even reminded in the post you quoted that the 'do not discuss moderation in thread' rule still applies. You could easily have edited your post and popped me a PM. And there it would have ended but you seem determined to bait until you are banned from this forum.

This post shall act as a record that it is your own actions which lead to you being sanctioned by me in this thread.

oscarBravo

antiskeptic wrote: »

You seem to be evading the problem. You might not like the conclusion presented to you via argument. If you think the argument is faulty then by all means say how.

I'm not really interested in chasing down all this handwaving.

How do you extract objective (remember our definition: what is irrespective of what we might conclude) from your own subjective decision to defer to consensus?

I'm having trouble understanding the point of an argument that objective reality is unknowable.

Thought experiment: I could push someone off a cliff, because in my subjective reality they'll float slowly to the ground. When I'm arrested for murder, I point out that there's no way to be certain that it's objectively true that they fell to their death; in my subjective reality they floated gently to the ground, so I didn't do anything wrong.

Wouldn't it then be immoral to prosecute me? Nobody can prove that I did anything wrong, because all they can point to is their subjective perception of a dead body.

What's the case for the prosecution, in a world where objective reality is unknowable?

Peregrinus

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm having trouble understanding the point of an argument that objective reality is unknowable.

Maybe you’re half-way towards suggesting a point yourself, with this:

oscarBravo wrote: »

What's the case for the prosecution, in a world where objective reality is unknowable?

Objective reality can’t be known with 100% certainty. Even taking something like, say, the acceleration due to gravity, we can measure this experimentally. But the validity or utility of the experiments depend on a number of axioms, Given those axioms, we can know the acceleration due to gravity, but as we cannot prove the axioms to be true, there’s still a possibility that what we “know” is in fact false.

So far, this is a trite point for philosophers. So what’s the value in pointing it out? The value is that it opens up other, more interesting questions. YOu ask, what's the case for the prosecution, in a world in which objective reality is unknowable? That's an important real-world question that demands attention, because the world we live in is one in which objective reality is ultimately unknowable.

How can we live in a world in which perfect knowledge of objective reality is unattainable? How can we live with radical uncertainty? When it comes to something like the acceleration due to gravity, pretty much all of us are happy to live on the unproven and unprovable assumption that the axioms which underpin the scientific method are correct and, on the whole, that seems to work out pretty well for us. So the prosecution against you will proceed and, if there are difficult issues, it won't be over whether the victim plummeted to his death or not. But that’s not a complete answer, because there are other claims whose truth cannot be tested by the scientific method. So, how are we to live in a world where important claims cannot be known to be either true or false? This matters, because the class of claims that cannot be known to be either true or false includes things like:

- that a woman has a right to control her own fertility;

- that my right to free speech trumps (or doesn’t trump) your right not to be offended, your right to confidentiality or privacy, your right to control your own personal data, your right to privacy; your copyright; etc

- that there are fundamental human rights that cannot be overridden even by a democratically-expressed majority view;

- what these fundamental human rights are;

- and many more besides. In other words, it includes lots of questions that we regard as quite important, and that we have a need to take a position on.

I humbly suggest that something like the sh!tshow of a discourse about abortion that we had in Ireland over the past 40 years might have proceeded in a more constructive way if both sides had conceded that their respective positions were founded on claims which could not be known to be true, and had tried to work out a position which accepted this instead of ignoring or denying it.