Anything that requires experience to prove is not objectively true, and cannot be proven to be so.

Author: Intelligence_06

Posts

Total: 36
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 167
Posts: 3,837
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
Our science and morality is built upon one "fact": That experience matters, and that what you see is true. That simply isn't true, as we cannot prove anything based on experience: How do we know that invisible aliens aren't pushing all these objects to create the illusion of Gravity? We do not know. Even though the current physics may not be "true", it is plausible, or that we think it is true, or that it is subjectively true. There is nothing preventing someone with what we call schizophrenia to actually see objects "with mass" to float upwards without seemingly any force exerted on it. In fact, we cannot conclude that those ones with schizophrenia are seeing the real world as it is, and we just have the same symptom of schizophrenia. How do we determine normal vision and abnormal vision? By social categorization, or what we "think" is right versus what we think isn't. Even how we see the world cannot be proven to be true, let alone speculation based on it.

You cannot prove that the next time you push a shopping cart "forward" and nothing else, it won't push back at you and smash you to the walls. You cannot prove that the next time an apple grows ripe, it won't fall endlessly to the sky. Even though we tend to believe our experiences and more often times than not, you see the objects behave exactly like how the old people tell you through the physic textbook that they are going to behave, it is through YOUR vision. You can only prove that this time it worked, subjectively, but never that it WILL work next time, objectively.

Objective truth based on experience is equal to nonsense because objective experience is impossible and experience is not objective. Anything we consider true, based on experience, are, at most, subjective truths.
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 167
Posts: 3,837
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
Feel free to debate me on this topic if you truly will.
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
Jean-Paul Sartre has already went down this train of thinking. You should read his stuff so you can learn more quickly, what took him years to learn decades even.

I think, therefore I am.
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 167
Posts: 3,837
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@Wylted
So you agree?
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@Intelligence_06
yes. I had to teach this to my son yesterday. Because we go through a crosswalk and he did not want to wait for a car to stop because they always have stopped at the stop sign. 

I had to explain, just because something has always happened, does not mean it always will happen and we need to be safe
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 167
Posts: 3,837
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
Because we go through a crosswalk and he did not want to wait for a car to stop because they always have stopped at the stop sign. 

I had to explain, just because something has always happened, does not mean it always will happen and we need to be safe
I don't know how well your son understands this but this is essentially a double-edged sword: Just because the crosswalk was safe doesn't mean it is safe at this point. Also, your son would basically prevail in this argument because he is free to do everything if I am imagining that you are imagining whatever I think you are imagining because every threat would be imaginary and impossible to be proven to exist.

This statement works about objective things even: for example, history. I fail to see the connection.

Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@Intelligence_06
  You don't need certainty to have knowledge. Science uses the power of induction to create explanations, like equations about gravitational attraction, that are taken as objective because they consistently, in every application, accurately describe and predict observable phenomena. If we can inductively prove that something is objective, the ability of most people to confirm that makes it objective. The existence of the sun is objective, because the explanation that the Earth's light and heat is caused by the sun makes testable predictions. Even though there are blind people, and people that can't feel heat, the existence of the sun is an objective fact.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 555
Posts: 19,352
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
Actually this thread's title has it entirely backwards.

Experiences can reveal objective truths but those objective truths can never be subjectively proven true to those who can't or haven't experienced it.
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Intelligence_06
It is not a singular experience that matters. The whole point of science, as opposed to singular experiential observation is that the experience is repeatable and reproducible. It is, therefore, a string of identical experiences that establishes valid theory, and continued repeatability and reproducibility to convert theory to fact. We cannot ignore the multiplicity required.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Intelligence_06
You cannot prove that the next time you push a shopping cart "forward" and nothing else, it won't push back at you and smash you to the walls. You cannot prove that the next time an apple grows ripe, it won't fall endlessly to the sky. Even though we tend to believe our experiences and more often times than not, you see the objects behave exactly like how the old people tell you through the physic textbook that they are going to behave, it is through YOUR vision. You can only prove that this time it worked, subjectively, but never that it WILL work next time, objectively.
HUME OR
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 167
Posts: 3,837
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@Sum1hugme
You don't need certainty to have knowledge. Science uses the power of induction to create explanations, like equations about gravitational attraction, that are taken as objective because they consistently, in every application, accurately describe and predict observable phenomena. If we can inductively prove that something is objective, the ability of most people to confirm that makes it objective.
Prove that.

Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 167
Posts: 3,837
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
Experiences can reveal objective truths
No. All experience are subjective and every confirmation based on experience are subjective to that person. No matter how many people believed it, since absolute objectivity cannot be perceived, there is no way to prove that those experiences yield objective truths.


but those objective truths can never be subjectively proven true to those who can't or haven't experienced it.
If I have a dragon in my garage who is invisible, roars inaudible noise and breathes invisible and garage-temperature fire, then what is the difference between having it or not having it? The objective truths are like that. Even if objective truths based on experience exists, there is no way to prove that they in fact do.

The problem is here. You can only prove that this is subjectively true, because you see it. Objective truth based on experience is impossible to prove to be true.
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@Intelligence_06
What do you mean? I just did.
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 167
Posts: 3,837
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@Sum1hugme
How do you know they are consistent? How do you know they will work in the future? Science? Well, it is based on past experiences that you don't even know if they exist or not, so no.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Intelligence_06
Human experience and human knowledge is FUNDAMENTALY SUBJECTIVE.

QUANTA is empirically demonstrable and or logically necessary (and emotionally meaningless).

QUALIA is experiential, personal, private, gnostic (and emotionally meaningful).

Claiming your "understanding" is in any way "objective" is absurd.
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@Intelligence_06
You can know x because you have inductive reasons to believe x, and if that belief corresponds to reality. If knowledge is justified true belief, then you can have knowledge through induction. The problem of induction does not mean we can't have knowledge about reality. 
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Sum1hugme
You can know x because you have inductive reasons to believe x, and if that belief corresponds to reality. If knowledge is justified true belief, then you can have knowledge through induction. The problem of induction does not mean we can't have knowledge about reality. 
"justified true belief" is a rather muddled concept itself.

However, I think you're on the right track here.

In the same way a general doesn't require perfect knowledge of a battlefield before making a plan of attack,

We don't require perfect confidence in our ability to predict future events before we as individuals plan and act.
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 167
Posts: 3,837
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@3RU7AL
Looks like we agree.


zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,068
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Wylted
Cogito, ergo sum.........Rene Descartes.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 555
Posts: 19,352
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Intelligence_06
since absolute objectivity cannot be perceived, there is no way to prove that those experiences yield objective truths.
The default assumption is that what you're perceiving is real, not the opposite.

If I have a dragon in my garage who is invisible, roars inaudible noise and breathes invisible and garage-temperature fire, then what is the difference between having it or not having it?
Define 'have' and there is the answer. As for this scenario, that clearly isn't yours to have, you can't care for ot as you don't know how to interact with it. By the way, how do you know the dragon is there, in this scenario?
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,893
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Intelligence_06
Objective truth based on experience is equal to nonsense because objective experience is impossible and experience is not objective. Anything we consider true, based on experience, are, at most, subjective truths.
Objective truth is unachievable because all experience is subjective. Rather, it’s something to strive for. 
The closest you can get to objective truth is inter-subjective truth. 
Nyxified
Nyxified's avatar
Debates: 21
Posts: 224
2
3
9
Nyxified's avatar
Nyxified
2
3
9
-->
@Intelligence_06
Isn't this addressed by the idea of properly basic beliefs? That our experiences and senses can be trusted until we have reason not to trust them?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Reece101
The closest you can get to objective truth is inter-subjective truth. 
Well stated.
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Intelligence_06
An experience/observation itself is evidence, whether or not it proves something true is irrelevant to the fact that experience is grounded in reality and can be objectively proven. Tell your martial arts Master that his experience is subjective as he objectively throws your azz to the floor lol. Tell a surgeon that his years experience in surgically removing body parts is subjective, as he objectively removes your gallbladder. 

First hand observations are used as evidence in court to support what may be objectively true to prove a case. To observe something is to know something objectively, to experience something is to connect observation to reality. I think you're getting experience/observation twisted with being able to objectively prove something to another party, that's two different things because you have to have more tools available to demonstrate something to someone other than having witnessed something yourself. That doesn't mean that what you experienced is not an objective truth or fact. 

Someone could run up behind you and push you over and because you experienced it that is what makes it a fact, you observed someone pushing you over. However you have to have more than your word to "prove" it to someone else even though it did happen, maybe a video, another witness or you get the guy that shoved you to admit it. Either way, regardless if you have the means to prove it it still objectively happened. That is what experience is. 
Subjective means to be influence by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions....if you experience something objective those factors are irrelevant, and not all experiences are subjective, not even remotely. 

You cannot compare all experience and observation to mental illness because mental illness is a malfunction, you wouldn't take a faulty tool and compare it to a normal functioning tool as a means to fix something. That would be stupid, a normal functioning tool is meant to solve problems whereas a malfunctioning tool loses its ability to solve those problems. 

I can take my experience playing guitar and objectively prove to you that I can play it by my own experience. That means I can use my experience and objectively show you it's true, that I can play. There's different kinds of experience of course, where I could demonstrate my experience but then there's first hand witness or testimony, where I have no means of demonstrating something other than by testifying. It doesn't change the reality that to experience something is to objectively know it. 

Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,294
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
I thought this was all sorted out back in May of 585 BC, yet here we are 2600 years later and we still have people choosing to stand on the shoulders of midgets...
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,325
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
I doubt therefore I am.  

He should doubt that he has the ability to doubt.  He proves himself wrong. 
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,325
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Intelligence_06
Our science and morality is built upon one "fact": That experience matters, and that what you see is true. That simply isn't true, as we cannot prove anything based on experience: How do we know that invisible aliens aren't pushing all these objects to create the illusion of Gravity? We do not know. Even though the current physics may not be "true", it is plausible, or that we think it is true, or that it is subjectively true. There is nothing preventing someone with what we call schizophrenia to actually see objects "with mass" to float upwards without seemingly any force exerted on it. In fact, we cannot conclude that those ones with schizophrenia are seeing the real world as it is, and we just have the same symptom of schizophrenia. How do we determine normal vision and abnormal vision? By social categorization, or what we "think" is right versus what we think isn't. Even how we see the world cannot be proven to be true, let alone speculation based on it.

You cannot prove that the next time you push a shopping cart "forward" and nothing else, it won't push back at you and smash you to the walls. You cannot prove that the next time an apple grows ripe, it won't fall endlessly to the sky. Even though we tend to believe our experiences and more often times than not, you see the objects behave exactly like how the old people tell you through the physic textbook that they are going to behave, it is through YOUR vision. You can only prove that this time it worked, subjectively, but never that it WILL work next time, objectively.

Objective truth based on experience is equal to nonsense because objective experience is impossible and experience is not objective. Anything we consider true, based on experience, are, at most, subjective truths.
This is an excellent topic.  

I would disagree though with your first statement.  Science is not built on experience. It is built on a premise. A premise which is inconsistent with current scientific thought. This presumption is that logic is true.  How does one prove logic is correct? By further logic or by experience.  Nevertheless, why should experience be able to prove logic or reason? What makes something repeatable - a proof?  Just because I repeat something over and over again - doesn't suddenly make it true.  Unicorns are true. Unicorns are true. Unicorns are true.  Even if I repeat that ad finitem, does not make it true. 

It is interesting watching advocates of different positions here. Reason v Experience.  Where is the pragmatist who says  - who cares about this reasoning, let's just see what works to discover what works?

Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,105
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Intelligence_06
You cannot prove that the next time you push a shopping cart "forward" and nothing else, it won't push back at you and smash you to the walls. You cannot prove that the next time an apple grows ripe, it won't fall endlessly to the sky.
Why do you need to be absolutely certain about something in order to consider it proven?

And the objective truth of a proposition is in no way impacted whether it was proven or not, so your title is false.

ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,198
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Intelligence_06
... You cannot prove that the next time you push a shopping cart "forward" and nothing else, ....

All seeming pushing phenomena of our finite Universe, is a resultant of pulling-inward phenomena.

The cart is pushed for one or two reasons;

1} our body weight leans into ergo gravity pulls inward on the mass of body,

2} whenever we push, lift etc for ex in 60's we see strong man pulls ---pulls toward himself--   a train box-car with his hands, teeth whatever, this is a resultant of his muscles { myosin } contracting inward i. the brain only sends one kind of signal to the brain, and that is for the muscle { myosin } to contract. Once that signal stops, the muscle just relaxes ergo resultant is to expand outward to its at rest positioning,

3} all thoughts { concepts } are resultant of experience ex I think about something { occupied space something } ---ex my finger with my brain---  ergo I exist as a something { occupied space } that  has access to Meta-space{ Metaphysical-1 } mind/intellect/concepts occupied space has associated numerical sets, geometry patterns etc,

4} a resultant of our experience of occupied space is that we discover absolute truths aka physical laws/ cosmic principles ex, the can only exist five regular/symmetrical polyhedra of Universe and the word Universe is inclusive of the sub-catagorical concept of multiverse's.




384 days later

Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
I Kant believe it.