Of course I remember; I wrote the following: “I don’t want another possible equivocation to cross us up; spell out, word-for-word, exactly what you mean by ‘A => B’. No shorthand. No colloquialisms. I want to make sure we’re on the same page.” Here, then, are the word-for-word sentences that are meant to spell out exactly what I mean by “requisite bearing”: I’m using “requisite bearing” to mean that the conclusion does require the chain of reasoning in question. If a chain of reasoning lacks that requisite bearing, then disproving it doesn’t disprove the conclusion; if it has the requisite bearing, then disproving it disproves the conclusion.
Again, I’d sure like a cite beyond your say-so. The dictionary definitions I’ve seen don’t require observation; as far as I can tell, they pertain to a material thing in objective reality that exists independent of subjective observation. Possibly you can supply a dictionary definition that requires observation to move something from subjective to objective; I’ll wait.
But you’re not suggesting that the moon is subjective, right? You’re suggesting that it is part of physical reality, and doesn’t merely exist within your mind?
This definition of “requisite bearing” is vacuous at best, and begging the question at worst. I’ll give a real-world example in plain English to illustrate my point:
In 1993 Andrew Wiles announced a proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem. It turned out to suffer a serious problem. Luckily, Wiles was able to fix the problem and publish the proof of the theorem in 1995.
Now, obviously the fact that his first proof was faulty did not render the theorem false. In fact, over the centuries there have been hundreds of serious attempts to prove the theorem, all failing. The failure of these proofs did not impugn the theorem itself.
Now, you would say that the theorem did not have “requisite bearing”? Isn’t this just a synonym for “not proven”? Finally, Wiles, in 1995, gives the theorem “requisite bearing”. Oh. You mean he provided a valid proof of it, right?
How is your term “requisite bearing” necessary?
I apologize; apparently you didn’t understand what I’d meant by it, and I should’ve done a better job of spelling it out. It’s not whether, as you say, ‘the theorem did not have requisite bearing’. It’s whether the alleged proof had requisite bearing on the theorem – such that disproving the alleged proof would disprove the theorem. Which, of course, wasn’t the case.
I thought it would simplify the explanation. Apparently I was mistaken.
There is no dictionary definition for strings of words. What we are discussing requires strings of words, for example: (your definition) of or having to do with a material object. Having actual existence or reality.
So what do you want? The string of words material object presupposes existence of said material object. My dictionary defines existence in terms of the word objective, which is tautological. But stepping back, it is an obvious presupposition that existence or material object are things that are measured. Again, the magical pink elephant beside me is not a material object because it cannot be measured outside my mind. It is subjective. The book on my table, on the other hand, exists outside my mind. It can me measured outside my mind. It has objective existence. To me this fact is so obvious as to be implicit in any such discussion.
To wit, the first few lines from Wiki:
a proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are “mind-independent”—that is, not the result of any judgements made by a conscious entity or subject
The magic pink elephant beside me, the cheese moon, etc, are not mind-independent – they result only from judgements made within a brain. They are not objective, according to Wikipedia.
No. The aspect of the moon that turns to cheese whenever you are not looking at it is subjective. It has no basis in objective reality. The moon itself has basis in objective reality because we can “see” (ie measure) it.
My problem with it is that “disproving a line of reasoning that has requisite bearing (as you define it) upon a theorem” is equivalent to “proving the theorem false”.
Your “simplification” requires 9 words, when only 4 words are necessary (and sufficient).
I’m with you so far…
…and you’ve lost me. I don’t see why that’s an obvious presupposition, sure as I don’t see the need for a string of words when one will do; in discussing existence they touch on materiality, and actuality, and reality – but never perceivability or measuarability or knowability or whatever. I see that you’re presupposing it, but I don’t see anyone else doing it.
So the moon we see has a basis in objective reality because we can subjectively perceive it when using our brains to make judgments? But as soon as we ponder a moon we don’t subjectively perceive, its objective existence is impossible because the postulated mind-independent existence is mind-dependent by dint of being postulated?
Armed with this definition, and going back to your first use of the phrase “requisite bearing”, I fail to understand your point:
You are saying that “if you can prove the proposition true or false, then you can falsify the proposition”. Which is vacuous.
I am saying that “you can prove the proposition false by disproving the reasoning if and only if that reasoning has the requisite bearing on the proposition.” Obviously the part about proving the proposition false by proving the proposition false is vacuous; a proposition that truly rests on the reasoning leading up to it would be a rather different sort of thing.
Perhaps you are lost because you keep sniping out the parts of my quotes that are most important to my argument.
Do you disagree that “the magical pink elephant beside me is not a material object because it cannot be measured outside my mind”? Do you think it has objective existence? If so, may I forward you the name of a good psychiatrist? (I joke)
Yep.
Nope. Granted, we have to use logical induction. But once we have established through repeated observation that the moon has lasting mind-independent material existence, then it by induction it can be proposed with reasonable confidence that the moon continues to have objective existence.
You are not progressing this discussion by continuing to use your obfuscatory phrase. As I pointed out, it only increases the number of words required. Please rephrase without “requisite bearing”.
I’m certainly not going to disagree with you on this; I eagerly grant that it’s not a material object, because you flatly stated that “it’s subjective. It’s not part of physical reality. It exists inside my mind.” I concurred so vigorously that I didn’t realize I needed to copy-and-paste it to indicate my agreement.
The moon, when unperceived, is not likewise subjective; it is part of physical reality; it does not exist solely inside your mind.
Hold on – are you saying that, through repeated observation, we can establish that it has observation-independent material existence?
I’m not sure I follow you; the only way I can see to rephrase it would be to increase rather than decrease the number of words required.
…and yet you still do not address the point as it was clearly intended. I will elaborate on the point and send it back to you: do you deny the objective existence of a pink elephant on the dark side of the moon that controls earth-weather? This time I do not flatly state “it’s subjective.” You are on your own.
I agree about the honest-to-goodness-moon. Why do you keep ignoring the fact that I have been explicitly referring to a cheese-moon as subjective?
Yes. This is the basic problem of induction. Do we know that the sun will rise tomorrow? No, but by induction it is very likely. Do we know that the moon (the normal one, this time) exists when we are not looking at it? No, but by induction it is very likely. Do we know that the moon is made of cheese whenever we are not looking at it? No, and this time there is no evidence whatsoever for its existence. It is an unfalsifiable proposition, invented completely inside my mind; it has no objective reality.
Try. I’m trying to get you to clearly and precisely state whatever you are trying to express. You can adopt my 9 words –> 4 words example, and go from there. My prediction is that once you do so, whatever point you were trying to make will dissolve.
Well, it either objectively exists or objectively doesn’t, that’s for sure – and anyone who claims that such an elephant exists would be talking about objective facts rather than merely relaying a matter of subjective taste. I’m certainly not making that claim; if anyone is, I’d love to hear their evidence.
Because the cheese-moon is precisely the opposite of that: it’s the moon as unperceived by any subject, and either exists or doesn’t as a matter of objective fact independent of subjective perception.
Seems just as unfalsifiable as the moon continuing to exist when unperceived, actually. How could we falsify that?
Some propositions are so dependent on the chain of reasoning that led up to them as to be disproven if we can disprove that chain of reasoning.
There is no evidence. Even in theory. It is precisely the same as someone saying “I like cheese”. In both cases a proposition is born out entirely from one’s mind with no outside support. According to Wikipedia’s definition of objectivity (which you never addressed), the proposition cannot be objective.
It is not the moon as unperceived by any subject, it is the cheese-moon as unperceived by any subject. If something can never in principle be shown to exist as a matter of objective fact independent of subjective perception, then there is no meaning to assigning the possibility of objective existence to it. There is meaning to assigning subjective claim to it, however, since despite the meaninglessness of assigning possible objective existence, there is always the possibility of subjective claim, just as one cannot deny one’s subjective claim to the taste of cheese, or the hallucination of a ghost, or of a cheese-moon.
Many people believe that the moon doesn’t exist when unperceived. The fact is, there is no objective meaning to the notion of the moon existing when unperceived. There is, however, meaning (and great utility) in the predictive capabilities of inductive logic, which allow us to send space men to the moon, knowing with great certainty that when they get there, there will be moon to land on, regardless of anyone’s subjective notions regarding the moon’s existence while no one is looking.
Good, but still pretty vacuous. Even better would be: some propositions can be disproven. (By definition a (dis)-proof consists of a chain of reasoning upon which the (negation of) the proposition is dependent)
As far as I can tell, your quote from Wiki was just the “mind-independent” bit. I’ve repeatedly addressed the “mind-independent” bit to stress that, as far as I can tell, your perception of the moon isn’t mind-independent, but the moon when unperceived is. Which, as I’ve said, strikes me as pretty much the opposite of subjective.
If you’re truly keen on the Wiki article, I’ll drop in a quote from it here: “If it is true that reality is mind-independent, it is thus inclusive of objects that are unknown”. What, in the article, establishes a need for such unknown objects to be perceived by a subject to objectively exist?
Sure there is. As per the Wiki article, we’re talking about assigning the possibility of objective existence to something mind-independent: it either exists, or doesn’t, out there in a mind-independent reality that can in fact be defined as inclusive of unknown objects.
I’m sorry, but that belief strikes me as entirely meaningful; I can understand why you’d call such a belief unfalsifiable, or why you’d reject it altogether, but it certainly seems to convey a perfectly intelligible idea.
The problem is, it’s also possible to disprove a proposition without reference to the chain of reasoning.
That’s called a ‘counterexample’. There are examples of ~X, and proofs of ~X. You are discussing proofs of ~X.
The bit I think I quoted was:
a proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are “mind-independent”—that is, not the result of any judgements made by a conscious entity or subject
How is that which cannot be tested outside of one’s own mind (the unfalsifiable cheese-moon for example) in agreement with the above definition of an objective proposition?
First of all, it is not clear that reality is mind-independent. A large portion of physicists believe that it is not.
Second of all, “objects that are unknown” may indeed be posited to objectively exist if their existence is falsifiable. But the theorem that they exist objectively is not proven until objective evidence is found. Let me repeat that because it is so important: *the theorem that they exist objectively is not proven until objective evidence is found.
*
It is not mind-independent if the only possible test or proof of its existence is within the mind. Just as a hallucination is not mind-independent, even though the hallucination projects the illusion of a mind-independent reality in the mind of the afflicted. It is facile to conclude that just because the proposition is in regards to mind-independent reality, that the proposition itself must be objective.
It conveys an intelligible idea, but it is not meaningful. It has not function, use, or purpose. A further example: all horses are really little oranges. Except in every measurable sense they are indistinguishable from horses. But otherwise they are really little oranges.
Now whether or not this is true has no meaning. The idea is intelligible, but irrelevant to objective reality. There is no objective reality that can be assigned to that which cannot be measured, as per your definition (remember: material, etc, is a thing, with properties, and properties are that which have been observed, also by definition).
I’m with you completely…your above quote is more philosophical than any other post…simple…nice…ahhhh…(when you start bringing math into philosophy, I think you have lost the point, jmho)
… and in the real world, things that sound nice and simple are not necessarily correct.