tonyenglish7 wrote:Just because some things are subjective, doesn't mean everything is. In fact, the very statement, "all things are subjective" is self defeating and therefore proves it's opposite.
spongebob wrote:I'm always amazed at the fallacious logic Tony can cook up. Tony, just where do you get this stuff? What logical argument can you possibly make to support this claim? I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the base claim here, that all things are subjective or not subjective, but I just don't see any logic in your claim that such a statement is "self defeating".
It seems to me, that this whole conversation started going south right about here.
I think Tony covers his reasoning pretty well, when he responds later on to Bob:
tonyenglish7 wrote:OK, let's try this again... the statement "All things are subjective" is either an objective statement, or a subjective one. If it is objective, it violoates it's own premise, namely that all things are subjective. But if it is subjective, then it is not actually saying anything.
However, the conclusion he tries to draw from his reasoning, is - well I don't think I even have a word for it. Tony in fact, had also gone on to say:
tonyenglish7 wrote:The canvas for the subjective painting is either real or unreal, the universe is in existence or it is not. And all things that are on a continuum are attached or refer to things that are not on a continuum.
So, the question is this; Is the standard as to which something is judged to be moral, real or not? I say yes, you say ???
I say, give me some repeatable, testable, verifiable evidence. In fact, in a nutshell, that's the actual difference between being objective and being subjective. It's not objective if there's no evidence.
Quite simply, I don't follow the logic of the argument. Tony, your premises don't logically lead to your conclusion. You may as well have said, "My car is either on the road or it isn't. The universe is in existence or it is not. Therefore, a cat will never be born fluorescent purple." ...for all the sense it made to me.
Bob, as I see it, was equally confused by what Tony had just said. So confused that he went on to make, what was on the face of it, quite a nice clunker:
spongebob wrote:But what makes it "objective" if only one person asserts it?
As I said earlier, I wouldn't be asking a magistrate that's hearing my case that question.
spongebob wrote:What makes an idea objective is multiple points of view, Tony.
It's not about the number of people that state something, or their point of view, it's about the facts based on evidence. The magistrate is one person, and they strive to be (and succeed, most of the time) to be objective. In other words, they find somebody guilty or innocent on the evidence of the facts, not on, say, how shifty they do or don't look.
However, I can see what Bob's saying. He's arguing that the more people that weigh in on something, the closer the probability that the truth will become evident. However, the sample of the population weighing in, matters. For instance:
Let's say my kid has a cough and I say, he has a cold. Let's say my wife agrees with me. Furthermore, my neighbours come to visit and they too agree that it's just a cold. Has my kid got a cold?
Now, let's say a doctor comes along, performs a diagnosis and says my kid's got bronchitis. According to what Bob wrote, the kid's most probably got a cold; and we know this is not right. Why? Because the sample [we picked] of the population telling us it's a cold. In this particular case, the doctor's opinion (the doctor, being a sample population of 1) is the one most likely to be objective. The family/friends opinion (sample size of 4 or more), is much more likely to be subjective. And objectivity has shown itself to be a much better mechanism for arriving at the truth.
The thing that makes people like Darwin stand out, apart from his intelligence, is that he was a person whose objectivity overrode his subjectivity. Subjectively, he knew that God had rolled up his sleeves, picked up some dirt, created Adam & Eve and breathed life into mankind. Objectively though, the facts were telling him differently. And, in my opinion, what makes him truly great is that he allowed the facts to win. He allowed his objectivity to win out over his subjectivity.
As I said though, I can see why Bob mightn't have made a lot of sense to me here. He was presented with an illogical argument from Tony, from which no sense could be made; and he tried to make some sense out of it.
I believe when Bob said that you got objectivity from multiple points of view, he was thinking along the lines of, say, getting a second doctor's opinion on a diagnosis IF what the first doctor diagnosed doesn't sound right. Rian actually described this with her foot operation recently. The first doctor's diagnosis didn't make sense with what she was feeling. So, she sought the advice of a 2nd professional. The keyword here is professional. Both of these samples of the population are trained medical experts. They are people trained to take in the facts (via observation and questioning) and based on that evidence, form a diagnosis. And, obviously one got it wrong in Rian's case, and one got it right. That's not to say they aren't both equally competent either. It may have been that Rian was better able to answer questions and state how her foot felt by the time she'd gotten 'round to seeing the second doctor, so he had better facts to work with. I don't know and it doesn't matter for the purposes of this discussion.
What matters, is that Bob is also right in his thinking. He is thinking like a scientist. Scientists are very critical of each other - which is a good thing, because this gives the facts that eventuate from findings, weight. So, when you have a sample of the population that's a bunch of people that are trained to be objective, then there's a good chance that if a bunch of them agree on something, it's probably going to be as correct as it can be at this point in time. So, I can certainly see why Bob would have said that "what makes an idea objective, is multiple points of view." Note too, that this is why in the US Supreme Court, there's not 1 judge, but 9. It's not one, because as trained as these people are, there is still the chance that one single individual may well not be as objective as they ought to be.
I think Jim was on the money when he said,
JustJim wrote:I think Tony is misunderstanding and misapplying...
He'd have to be, to be making so little sense.