I never said anything remotely like what you’re claiming that I said. So if you’re upset about the claim being “absurd”, complain to a mirror because you’re the one who made it up. I pointed out that there are plentiful truths for which hypothetical questions about acceptance by hypothetical beings in distant galaxies are utterly irrelevant. You seem to have decided that a truth can only be meaningful if it’s a “universal truth independent of us”, while I and everyone else in this thread keep pointing out obvious counterexamples.
I see two possibilities: either you’re using a circular definition or you’re using “we” two different ways, and one way is obviously bizarre. “‘We’ refers to scientific knowledge”? Isn’t “we” a first-person, plural pronoun that can only refer to people?
What are these reasons, how do you know them, and can you provide cites to real journal articles that back them up?
Perhaps this crystallizes the differences between our two worldviews. I believe that (ripe) bananas are yellow while you’ve pushed logic and reason to the point where you’ve concluded that they are not. Consider the following yes/no questions:
Did the Holocaust happen?
Is atmospheric carbon dioxide causing climate change?
Was Barack Obama born in Hawaii?
Do vaccines cause autism?
Are you a poached egg?
Now using your rule that any universal truth must apply equally to nonexisting beings in distant galaxies, do you answer each question with ‘yes’ or ‘no’?
You’re making my point in a very succinct and obvious manner. What you just said is exactly why human bias has to be excluded from any type of philosophical theories if their conclusions have any chance of explaining reality.
The moral of the story: Human beings are irrelevant to the universe. I am repeating myself but I do because it seems to be the last frontier in human intelligence: disregarding human existence when considering the rules of the universe.
Naxos: “You’re making my point in a very succinct and obvious manner. What you just said is exactly why human bias has to be excluded from any type of philosophical theories if their conclusions have any chance of explaining reality.”
Apparently I *have *to make your point—although I don’t see how you can construe it that way—because you seem incapable of it yourself. You speak in vague terms of “universal truths” without offering any concrete examples while dismissing out of hand concrete examples from others as absurd.
You say, “Our capacity for logic allows us to understand things that don’t depend on us to exist, which is what I call universal truths.” Stated differently, you’re suggesting that without our capacity for logic, we could not understand universal truths. If we can’t understand these universal truths, then for all practical purposes they cease to exist for us because we do not see them.
Humankind may not represent the highest and best form of intelligent life, but at least we’re in the game. The human component in the universe is not only desirable, it is crucial. Without it, the universe does not in any meaningful sense exist.
How can you not see how moronic that statement is?
Gravity would still exist if that fateful asteroid had not killed off the dinosaurs, and you or me would not be around to discuss these things.
Human beings have achieved the capability of being aware of things that happen in the universe, that much we know. But the universe exists independently of humans and the human ego. Get with the program.
That’s nice. What does it have to do with Logic, though?
What? Sorry, that didn’t make any sense to me.
OK, with you so far
You lost me. What does “universal” and “truth” mean in that statement? What is the scope of “Universal” (your example of F=ma in the other thread indicates you clearly don’t mean “universal” = “always and everywhere”) and what criterion are you using to decide truth - obviously it’s not pure empiricism, because that’s certainly not the case for the development of science in general. Can only things free of human introspection be universal truths? Can we develop no universal truths relating to how thinking beings think?
What are the baseline axioms of your system? Can a statement be both true and not true?
Naxos, I would love to “get with the program” but you seem unwilling or—more likely—unable to coherently communicate it. You casually dismiss the opinions of others as “absurd” while not explaining your objection, then randomly string together some pseudo-scientific terms in a vague statement that neither addresses the actual question nor illuminates your position.
This should be easy for a smart guy like you. Please explain how the human factor is irrelevant to “universal truth.” Gravity seems to be a favorite subject of yours so you can start there. (Since we haven’t a clue about how gravity actually operates, you can skip over that.) As I am moronic, please get beyond your little “it exists independently of humans and the human ego” catchall and actually venture a simple declarative statement that supports your view. Explain how you can state unequivocally that gravity is a universal truth—because it is well within the realm of possibility that gravity does not in fact exist and that Einstein and Newton were colossal frauds.
A thousand years ago, it was a fact that the sun revolved around the earth. Nobody questioned it. If you’d asked somebody way back then if maybe the Earth revolved around the sun instead, he’d have looked at you and said, “Dost thou not see the sun as it riseth in the east and setteth in the west?” He’d have shaken his head sadly. “Canst thou not see how moronic that statement is?”
I am not suggesting that gravity is fictitious; what I am suggesting is that without a guy in a lab coat with a clipboard your “universal truth” would be meaningless.
The social sciences examine what humans do. Philosophy examines what humans should do. Unless one thinks that humans should do what most do, these can be two different things.
Science works by testing hypotheses which are constructed within the limitations of human bias against nature, which is not constrained by what we think should happen. Relativity is a splendid example. Consider the number of people who claim God must exist as first cause because they refuse to accept that some things in nature are causeless. They are a current example of people bound by human biases.
Theology and religion try to put philosophy on a basis like science by appealing to a deity to go outside human biases, as opposed to nature. It would work a bit better if they could show this deity existed - after that we could debate whether the deity actually does play the role that nature does.
If I’ve got this right, “universal Truths” are physical processes of the universe that would exist regardless of a human mind to observe it. This is subtly different from let us call…observed facts which are dependent upon a human mind and its inherent limitations, abstractions and assignations to exist.
For example, on earth tectonic plates moving about cause land masses to shift. This would be a universal truth. It would still happen regardless if we were here to observe it. An alien intelligence could just as well observe this action. It is important to distinguish between these universal truths and observed facts because in less clear cut cases we can be missing something important by assuming a point to the observation. There is no point to it. It just happens. If we weren’t here, it would go on happening.
Observed truths…“Bananas are yellow” on the other hand is an observed fact. The concept of yellow, bananas, and there propensity to be such a color is human subjective. This is perhaps a poor example though, because like many observed facts, it is really rather irrelevant if other species do not perceive the visual image of the reproductive organ of the genus musa to be the wavelength that we arbitrarily call yellow. Any human with a normally functioning brain and eyes will perceive it in the same manner. While the yellowness is completely subjective, it also is extremely unimportant in the big picture. It has no bearing on day to day life.
I would argue that the vast majority of such observations are likewise of no use, and serve primarily as a thought experiment. As a philosophy I find it a poor one because our observation is so key to actually living and getting on with things.
Yes, I imagine that’s what he’s driving at, though it’s anybody’s guess because he doesn’t seem to have the desire or ability to express it clearly
But even if you’re right, it doesn’t really address Dibble’s OP: is human perception relevant in philosophical discussions of these so called “universal truths” (which muddies the water somewhat as Hamster King observes because of the subjective nature of the word “truth.”)
But we *only *know what we know through our human minds. How, then, can we, as humans, judge anything to fall into the former category of “universal truths” without first passing it through the filter of “observed facts”? I would contend, therefore, it follows that the distinction is somewhat circular, and the truth/fact dichotomy is a false one for humans to hold. Or any sentient being.
Or, in another formulation - any definitional “universal truth” is *inherently *unverifiable to us. This brings us to Popperian falsifiability and hence the notion that an appeal to “universal truth” as a standard is , counter-intuitively, absolutely unscientific. It is, in fact, disguised (or not so disguised) rationalism - the notion that the criterion of truth is not empirical but deductive. It’s a faith-based methodology.
Our only (sane) recourse is to abandon quasi-mystical notions of universal truth for pragmatic approaches to knowledge and truth. Facts* are* the truth, or more properly, facets of the truth, and the more they are verifiable within our chosen systems, the the more true they are, but fact is an asymptote to “truth” itself and always will be.
Understand, I’m not taking a phenomenalist stance. I absolutely believe in a baseline reality, but I don’t think it’s scientific to think we can actually uncover it. We can just approximate it with increasing closeness.
“Universal truth” as a higher ideal for our efforts is the Buddha we meet on the road. We should go all Admiral Akbhar on that sucker*, not venerate it above so-called “false” pragmatics in some effort at emulating Vulcans :dubious: **.
Yell “It’s a trap” and then concentrate all firepower on its main element
** That’s my Spock stand-in, not an actual dubious smiley. Although that works too.
I don’t understand the distinction. Tectonics move with or without human observation, yes. But why is the fact that a banana is yellow dependent on human observation? You counter that “yellow” is “human subjective”, but how is “movement” also not subjective in the same sense?
Isn’t this just a rehash of the analytic-synthetic debate that’s been raging for centuries?
Not really, that’s a different argument - that there are things that are true purely by definition (not by deductive reason - like “triangles have three sides” or “bachelors are not married”) vs all other truths. I personally think it’s been settled since Quine.
As I understand this, (Not speaking for Naxos here, just my interpretation of what he is saying) The difference would be the following.
Movement of plates simply occurs. The concept of “plates” and “movement” are of course a human abstract used to illustrate a physical process. However, the process itself is not dependent on our observing it to occur. An alien species with none of our senses, but let us say a magnetic sense would still be able to observe and record the movement.
Bananas exist. However the concept of “yellow” is subjective. It is dependent upon a human mind and optical equipment for it to be observed. Other species may not see that wavelength of light, or see many more and the phenomena we call “yellow” simply does not exist to them. Thus when we say that “bananas are yellow” is a true statement we are making a claim that NEEDS us observers to happen. Our hypothetical aliens would have no concept of, or the ability to even formulate “yellow”. Color to them would be like us claiming to see pixies; something completely unsubstantiated and beyond their ability to verify.
Now, It can be argued logically that a great deal of our knowledge of the world is likewise subjective to our observations, and thus cannot be objectively proved to exist. However, I think this is generally a useless philosophical position because it simply denies our collective experience as sentient beings. For example, if I show a human a yellow banana and then show them a chart of colors and ask them to point to the one that most closely matches, they will all point to yellow. This shared experience, confirmed by other sentients is enough for me to call it “reality”, “fact”, or “truth” regardless of it’s subjectivity. So as to the OP, I would argue that human perception is something to be accounted for, but not irrelevant to the process of gaining knowledge about our universe.
No, it really isn’t. We may quibble about specific varieties of yellow, but the wavelength range is pretty much objective
I can see what you’re getting here - bananas might reflect IR or UV or something as well. This does not, however, negate the fact that over the part of the ER spectrum we delineate “visible light”, bananas generally reflect at 570–580nm, but not at 420-450 nm
Only if you believe yellowness is inherently a mental property that cannot be delineated as a physical one i.e. qualia exist and you are a phenomenalist.
…and Mars and Venus don’t have plate tectonics. Doesn’t change the fact that on Earth we do, and that bananas reflect at ~560nm. Both are purely physical properties. “Yellow” is just a semantic shortcut. When we say “The banana is yellow” we are making a statement about the world* outside* our minds, just as surely as when we say “plates move”
If I show a human child a coloring book with a page with bananas and then show them a Crayola crayon box and ask them to color the bananas, they will all color the bananas with yellow. In this class assignment the bright human children will reason that orange must be for oranges and lemon yellow must be for lemons and yellow probably is for bananas. The human child could theoretically never have seen a banana or even a color photograph of a banana yet with only a coloring book and a Crayola crayon they will all color the bananas yellow.
So you don’t need to show a human child a banana. There is no need for a concrete banana for them to see. This is empiricism.
All you need to show a human child is a coloring book. They, literally and figuratively, see the abstract banana in the coloring book. This is rationalism.
