Is objective truth theoretical or actual?

[marraco]

I'm having difficulty finding an answer to this question.

Objective truth is supposed to be actual, and independent of human opinion.

But many NT do not understand it, or are deceitful, and pretend that subjective opinions are objective truths. They cannot be trusted.

For example, religious people pretend that mythology contained in religious books are objective truths. That's baseless. They are liars, but you cannot argue with them. They refuse to think logically.

The best source of objective truth are math and scientific publications, but they don't cover everything that matters, and even science may be wrong, but at least science attempts to correct itself when wrong.

 

[ezcare]

Does not believing in gravity make gravity go away? There's your answer.

Does believing in gravity make it so? We really do not know enough about Quantum Physics to make this assertion one way or the other. However, recent research on Consciousness seems to indicate that what we experience is, to some degree, not the reality we think it is. The human brain may be capable of infusing form on the substance of the universe. It is like a super-complex holographic machine.

 

[ezcare]

"
If this were in Philosophy, you might get different answers, but in the sciences truth and proof take a back seat to the preponderance of evidence. Most of the scientific method is designed to minimize opportunities to fool ourselves, so we are able to trust our explanations as being the best supported.

Also, in science a theory is the strongest form of "truth" there is. A theory has mountains of supportive evidence, but we don't call it truth because we want to keep testing it against what we observe, always."

My favorite answer thus far..this I can live with.

Not necessarily so according to Immanuel Kant
Critique of Pure Reason - Wikipedia

 

[Esa]

Actually, if you inflate a ballon or blow a bubble. It will move in all directions simultaneously and that's not just at the subatomic level.

Could a balloon or a bubble move in multiple directions without being “stretched” ? Is it motion or more like alteration? I don’t know the answer to that. Though I don’t know much about physics in general.

 

[WittyAspie]

Could a balloon or a bubble move in multiple directions without being “stretched” ? Is it motion or more like alteration? I don’t know the answer to that. Though I don’t know much about physics in general.

I like the way you think. I don't know much about physics, but I really like your question. It seems the majority of humanity never approaches the depth of thinking you just displayed.

 

[Esa]

I like the way you think. I don't know much about physics, but I really like your question. It seems the majority of humanity never approaches the depth of thinking you just displayed.

I often feel like what’s obvious to me is probably obvious to everyone else.
I actually feel stupid for asking questions like the one above.

 

[WittyAspie]

I often feel like what’s obvious to me is probably obvious to everyone else.
I actually feel stupid for asking questions like the one above.

Quite the opposite is true. You see things others never will because you perceive things in ways others can't.

 

[Esa]

Quite the opposite is true. You see things others never will because you perceive things in ways others can't.

I’ve been told that. I still find it hard to believe. I often feel like I’m just saying the things out loud that everyone else is thinking but keeping to themselves. I hate it when others waste time on trivial matters, and I feel like, at times, that’s exactly what I’m doing: pointing out the obvious and being utterly annoying.

 

[WittyAspie]

I’ve been told that. I still find it hard to believe. I often feel like I’m just saying the things out loud that everyone else is thinking but keeping to themselves. I hate it when others waste time on trivial matters, and I feel like, at times, that’s exactly what I’m doing: pointing out the obvious and being utterly annoying.

I used to think that I was just saying what everyone else was thinking. Sometimes I probably am. But I realized not too long ago that most people don't have the thoughts I do. They are on a totally different wavelength and have no clue how to get on mine.

 

[wight]

Could a balloon or a bubble move in multiple directions without being “stretched” ? Is it motion or more like alteration? I don’t know the answer to that. Though I don’t know much about physics in general.

Like most things in physics, the answer depends on your reference frame. The balloon is moving in multiple directions at once when expanding or shrinking. It is also not moving relative to it's center of mass. But I don't think that is your question.

Generally speaking the answer is no, a physical balloon can not move in multiple directions without "stretching".

 

[Esa]

Like most things in physics, the answer depends on your reference frame. The balloon is moving in multiple directions at once when expanding or shrinking. It is also not moving relative to it's center of mass. But I don't think that is your question.

Generally speaking the answer is no, a physical balloon can not move in multiple directions without "stretching".

Exactly. It can’t move in multiple directions. The action there is not moving.

 

[Perspective1]

Truth is a religious term, if used it states that the person using it can revaluate his individual statement, his subjective opinion, as a collective/objective statement, and at the same time revoke the right to do exactly the same from anyone else.

We are subjective beings, we have no way to observe anything objectively, we can't even be sure that an objective layer of reality does exist at all. We can't even tell which part of our reality has been created by our brain, or if not all of it is artificial in that way.

If you want to state something as fact, don't use the word truth, because as it is a religious term, because of that it does not depend on any conditions at all. Unlike the scientific word "correct" which should only be used, if all conditions that might have an influence on the statement are defined.

Still it is impossible to claim that a correct statement is definitely objective, I personally don't see a reason to expect it to be, until we resolved the mystery of solipsism and other questions we can't find answers to.

 

[ezcare]

Truth is a religious term, if used it states that the person using it can revaluate his individual statement, his subjective opinion, as a collective/objective statement, and at the same time revoke the right to do exactly the same from anyone else.

Beg to disagree. If Truth is a religious term then it should only be used in a religious context. That would preclude and invalidate any criminal and civil trial based on factual evidence and eyewitness testimony.
However, within the context of a philosophic discussion, the rest of your statement is accurate. You are paraphrasing critics of Immanuel Kant:
"With Kant, then, external reality thus drops almost totally out of the picture, and we are trapped inescapably in subjectivity—and that is why Kant is a landmark. Once reason is in principle severed from reality, one then enters a different philosophical universe altogether.
This interpretive point about Kant is crucial and controversial. An analogy may help drive the point home. Suppose a thinker argued the following: 'I am an advocate of freedom for women. Options and the power to choose among them are crucial to our human dignity. And I am wholeheartedly an advocate of women’s human dignity. But we must understand that a scope of a woman’s choice is confined to the kitchen. Beyond the kitchen’s door she must not attempt to exercise choice. Within the kitchen, however, she has a whole feast of choices—whether to cook or clean, whether to cook rice or potatoes, whether to decorate in blue or yellow. She is sovereign and autonomous. And the mark of a good woman is a well-organized and tidy kitchen.' No one would mistake such a 'thinker for an advocate of woman’s freedom. Anyone would point 'out that there is a whole world beyond the kitchen and that 'freedom is essentially about exercising choice about defining and 'creating one’s place in the world as a whole. The key point about Kant, to draw the analogy crudely, is that he prohibits knowledge of anything outside our skulls. He gives reason lots to do within the skull, and he does advocate a well-organized and tidy mind, but this hardly makes him a champion of reason. The point for any advocate of reason is that there is a whole world outside our skulls, and reason is essentially about knowing it. Kant’s contemporary Moses Mendelssohn was thus prescient in identifying Kant as 'the all-destroyer.'"

• Stephen Hicks, Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault, Tempe AZ: Scholargy Press, p. 41-42

 

[Tom]

These type discussions, comparing everyday living with physics and such are like comparing apples and oranges. If you stick within an environment there are truths. Switch environments and they may not go with you. So just be aware of your surroundings.

 

[Perspective1]

If Truth is a religious term then it should only be used in a religious context. That would preclude and invalidate any criminal and civil trial based on factual evidence and eyewitness testimony.

Yes, one should be aware of turning it's context into a religious structure, if "truth" is being used.

No, the problem in trials is only the choice of wording, while there cannot be any trial happen, that reveals any absolute objective truth, if beings are involved, that have no ability to comprehend anything objectively at all.

It's like science, in science cannot be found any absolute objective truth, but the most probable result that is atm in reach to explain a phenomenon, because it can be described in relation to the known conditions, that have influence on it. So scientifically everything we seem to understand must always be seen as a temporary explaination, which will very probably change sooner or later.

In trials it is always the same, after new facts have been discovered, the results might change drastically.
So there is simply no reason to use the word truth at all.

Historically there is a reason why it is being used, trials were first developed by the christian church, and later developed further by civil society, while the term "truth" has never been replaced by a scientific term. Probably because it is so useful in political maneuvers, mostly to manipulate the publicity.

I don't know much about Kant and I don't care much what anyone else thought, I think for myself.
Fact is, our eyes don't see, our brain does create the picture, and that counts for all our senses, the brain interprets.

If we know of one thing, then it's that there are always things we don't know about.

 

[Esa]

These type discussions, comparing everyday living with physics and such are like comparing apples and oranges. If you stick within an environment there are truths. Switch environments and they may not go with you. So just be aware of your surroundings.

People keep failing at things because they believe things like physics are useless in everyday life.

 

[Tom]

People keep failing at things because they believe things like physics are useless in everyday life.

Physics are the rules that govern the physical world. Its just that in a snowball fight if you stop to contemplate them you get hit in the face.

 

[Esa]

Physics are the rules that govern the physical world. Its just that in a snowball fight if you stop to contemplate them you get hit in the face.

You might, and most likely would get hit in a snowball fight no matter what you do. If you don't like getting hit (even for the sake of hitting other people) you can simply avoid a snowball fight.

 

[Esa]

Physics are the rules that govern the physical world. Its just that in a snowball fight if you stop to contemplate them you get hit in the face.

A snowball fight is a product of a spiritual world, then?

 

[Tom]

A snowball fight is a product of a spiritual world, then?

No, I think its part of the practical world. Remnant of cave man clan fighting or something... Spirtual might be considered in theoretical realm, but I tend to place it in its own separate world.