There are an infinite number of possible descriptions of the world. — T Clark

Yep. The true ones do not disagree with each other.

The world is what is the case, which is a subset of the possibilities.

Goodman's view - the world is a composite of different possible descriptions - adds unnecessary entities in the form of multiple worlds.

But it is a curious twist.

The true ones do not disagree with each other. — Banno

There are an infinite number of true descriptions of the world.

The world is what is the case, which is a subset of the possibilities. — Banno

I think we frame our interactions with the world as if we're having a conversation with it.

When I look for things, for instance, it's like I'm asking the world questions. When I find the answer, it's like the world answered me.

A true proposition is a case where I've heard the world with fidelity. False ones are cases of mistakes or deceit, where someone is lying about what the world said.

The unexpressed proposition signifies that the world has answers that no one has heard yet.

Perhaps. I'd leave it at "indeterminate", unless there's an argument of which I am unaware. One supposes that such descriptions are finite and incomplete.

You and I sit opposite each other at a table. On my right is a knife, on my left, a fork. The fork is on your right. Does that mean there is no objective truth as to the location of the fork? — Banno

This seems like a poor analogy given that for an observer anywhere other than on the Earth, the Earth orbits the Sun. The illusion of Earth being stationary in relation to the Solar System is only made possible by the insufficient degree of observation that is necessarily brought about by being confined within the Earth system; it is entirely an artifact of this limited perspective .

Drop the word "objective" if it gets in the way.

Both an observer on the earth and one in orbit around the sun will agree that, for an observer on the earth the earth remains stationary, while for an observer in orbit around the sun it moves. Movement is relative to the frame of reference and can be translated from one frame to another. Basic relativity. — Banno

Relativity indeed lacks the concept of objectivity in being a family of conditional propositions of the form
x --> p(x), where x is a given frame of reference. As conditional propositions they are mutually consistent as you point out, and since the theory of relativity does not assume the existence of any particular frame of reference it isn't descriptive of any particular world.

On the other hand, we like to think that multiple observers exist who occupy one and the same universe in different frames of reference. The problem is, if we accept the reality of different frames of reference, say x' and x'', then relativity implies the unconditional conclusions p(x') and p(x'') that appear to be mutually inconsistent if interpreted as referring to one and the same world, e.g the Earth moving and not moving.

So to restore consistency it seems to me that one must either reject in a solipsistic fashion the existence of other frames of reference, or reject relativity, or accept the conclusions of relativity as referring to different worlds.

See the context.

So objectively speaking, is the Earth moving or not? Can objectivity be relative? — sime

So what's your answer to Sime?

...that appear to be mutually inconsistent... — sime

I'm not going to deal with this yet again. The Principle of Relativity does not say that truth is relative to the observer. It says that truth (physical law) is the same for all observers.

It's that idea, that truth is the same for all observers, that Goodman's ideas are at odds with. In positing this he walks away from our sharing a world. It's an odd view, but perhaps his account can be consistent, in which case the main argument against it may be parsimony.

It appears simpler to maintain that we have differing views of the same world, and that apparent differences of opinion (belief) can be explained. Otherwise our overwhelming agreement becomes difficult to explain. If we each construct a different world, how is it that you are replying to my post?

There are an infinite number of true descriptions of the world. — T Clark

More manic musings. If we can number the statements of a description, then after Godel* we might surmise that we can find a true statement not in the description; and that the description is either incomplete or inconsistent.

Goodman might be seen as opting for multiple, inconsistent descriptions.

Perhaps most of us might be seen as opting for one, incomplete description.

* "This statement is not part of the description"

If it is part of the description, then it is false, and the description is inconsistent.

If it is not part of the description, then it is true, and the description is incomplete...

See the context.

So objectively speaking, is the Earth moving or not? Can objectivity be relative? — sime


So what's your answer to Sime? — Banno

It depends on how you define "objective". The closest we can get to objectivity in my view is the
view from nowhere in particular, or the most generalized and informed view, according to which I would say the Earth is revolving around the Sun along with the rest of the planets and other bits and pieces.

While, conventionally speaking, true propositions are related to facts, but it is not necessary that they do, insofar as it is not necessarily a fact that makes a proposition true. Philosophy proper does not concern itself with convention. — Mww

I disagree, I think it is necessary that it is a fact that makes a proposition true. But I think that is for another discussion, perhaps a "what does "fact" mean" discussion.

Everybody’s entitled to disagree as they see fit.

It depends on how you define "objective". The closest we can get to objectivity in my view is the view from nowhere in particular, or the most generalized and informed view, — Janus

Isn't one account of objectivity simply a 'shared subjectivity' or perhaps that of the intersubjective community of agreement. The view from nowhere is the same as the Punctum Archimedis, right?

I said I wasn't going to enter into this discussion, but there is not much else going on this morning...

the view from nowhere in particular — Janus

Better to think of it as the view from anywhere. It's what is the case such that if I were in your position I would see the same thing. It says that if I were on your side of the table the knife would be on the right; it's the movement I would agree is occurring if I were in your frame of reference.

Isn't one account of objectivity simply a 'shared subjectivity' or perhaps that of the intersubjective community of agreement. — Tom Storm

Agreement, yes. Much better than "shared subjectivity", whatever that might be - a contradiction, on the face of it. We phrases our propositions so as to maximise agreement. We can agree that from where I stand the knife is on the right, but from where you stand it is on the left.

By phrasing statements so that they are true from anywhere, we can maximise agreement. That's not a bad way to think about objectivity.

Agreement, yes. Much better than "shared subjectivity", whatever that might be — Banno

You may well be right.

How do you think about certain scientific facts (especially in the context of fallibilistic understandings of science) as a community of agreement (i.e., scientific consensus)? If something in science is a fact by consensus until it is falsified in some way, does such a 'provisional' fact count as objective? Or is it just an agreement?

Better to think of it as the view from anywhere. It's what is the case such that if I were in your position I would see the same thing. It says that if I were on your side of the table the knife would be on the right; it's the movement I would agree is occurring if I were in your frame of reference. — Banno

This doesn't address the question of the objectivity of views about whether the Earth moves or not at all. Of course the view from Earth is not going to be the "view from anywhere" except of course anywhere on Earth; it is not going to be the view from anywhere that is not on the Earth.

The question is which is the more objective, the more informed, view in relation to the question as to whether the Earth is stationary relative to the Solar System; the view from the Earth or the the view from nowhere in particular, i.e.the view from anywhere not confined to the particular. limited view(s) from Earth?

Yeah, standing on the Earth we are not in an inertial frame of reference. The answer is too complicated for this context. So meh. Work it out for yourself.

Right, too hard for you apparently. :roll:

You may well be right. — Tom Storm

But I may well be wrong...? I'm happy with that.

How do you think about certain scientific facts (especially in the context of fallibilistic understandings of science) as a community of agreement (i.e., scientific consensus)? If something in science is a fact by consensus until it is falsified in some way, does such a 'provisional' fact count as objective? Or is it just an agreement? — Tom Storm

Fallibilism is popular, especially amongst scientists, and has some value, but is also problematic.

Consider how you phrased your question: "something in science is a fact by consensus until it is falsified in some way"... well, no. there's a difference between consensus and fact. Scientists can - and have - agreed on stuff that was false.

Its a fact if and only if it is true,

Similarly, a statement's being objective does not render it true.

But some statement that is worded in such a way that it is true for a broader audience will presumably more easily achieve consensus.

Too hard for me to explain it to you, yes.

Consider how you phrased your question: "something in science is a fact by consensus until it is falsified in some way"... well, no. there's a difference between consensus and fact. Scientists can - and have - agreed on stuff that was false.

Its a fact if and only if it is true,

Similarly, a statement's being objective does not render it true. — Banno

Cool. I know little of science. I read around half of Against Method and found it hilarious and touching in a way.

Philosophy goes around in circles (in my head, anyway). Is it not the case that matters we have called a fact are sometimes later demonstrated as being wrong? Does this mean that it was not ever a fact then? How do we tell the difference between a fact and a holding statement?

Too hard for me to explain it to you, yes. — Banno

If you understand it yourself you should be able to explain it. I don't believe you even know what it is you find too hard to explain. In any case all I was looking for was a counter-argument to the argument that the more objective view is the less limited, more comprehensively informed view.

Is the Earth flat or spherical? In the past it was believed that the Earth was flat and stationary because that was how it looked to those who were not yet able to get clear of the Earth in order to view it 'from the 'outside'. This has nothing to do with relativity except that of course the Earth is not moving relative to us, since we are moving with it.

Philosophy goes around in circles (in my head, anyway). Is it not the case that matters we have called a fact are sometimes later demonstrated as being wrong? Does this mean that it was not ever a fact then? How do we tell the difference between a fact and a holding statement? — Tom Storm

Isn't this the difference between what is, and what we know is?

And (apart from in some philosophies), those two things are not the same. As far as I can tell it is not our knowledge of things that make them exist. What exists does exist whether we know about it or not.

However we can do no better than our best knowledge at any given time. Hence we call our best knowledge as "fact," because we can't bypass our best knowledge and directly tap into perfect knowledge.

Against Method — Tom Storm

A favourite. Fun for beating falsificationists with.

Philosophy goes around in circles — Tom Storm

not just in one's head.

Is it not the case that matters we have called a fact are sometimes later demonstrated as being wrong? — Tom Storm

Yep. That we think something to be true does not always make it so.

Does this mean that it was not ever a fact then? — Tom Storm

Depends. But generally, yep.

How do we tell the difference between a fact and a holding statement? — Tom Storm

Well, a fact is true... I know that's not of much help, but it is right. The obvious follow up is "How do you tell if some statement is true?", to which the answer is that of course there is no general method for telling if any given statement is true...it depends on what the statement is about.

...and here we go back to T-sentences... Philosophy goes around in circles.

What is it you think you are arguing, if anything?

Sinking into disingenuousness and pretending you don't know in order to avoid admitting that you have no counter-argument is not going to help you. It's not a good look, Banno.

...and here we go back to T-sentences... Philosophy goes around in circles. — Banno

Great, thank you for the clarifications. Very useful.

A favourite. Fun for beating falsificationists with. — Banno

What's your view of Feyerabend's work?

Sinking into disingenuousness and pretending you don't know in order to avoid admitting that you have no counter-argument is not going to help you. It's not a good look, Banno. — Janus

I'm asking you to explain what it is you think you are arguing for. Not an unreasonable request, surely?

I'm asking you to explain what it is you think you are arguing for. Not an unreasonable request, surely? — Banno

The question is which is the more objective, the more informed, view in relation to the question as to whether the Earth is stationary relative to the Solar System; the view from the Earth or the view from nowhere in particular, i.e.the view from anywhere not confined to the particular. limited view(s) from Earth? — Janus

In any case all I was looking for was a counter-argument to the argument that the more objective view is the less limited, more comprehensively informed view. — Janus

Great, thank you for the clarifications. Very useful. — Tom Storm

Sarcastic bastard... :wink:

The philosophical arguments go around in circles, but somehow you and I and one or two others manage to make things a bit better despite all that.

What's your view of Feyerabend's work? — Tom Storm

His critique of Popperian falsification is I think inescapable. Science doesn't work that way, nor ought it. But "anything goes" will not work either - it sounds like (was) a trumpet call to the Left, but ends up being a recipe for keeping things as they are - if anything goes why change?

The notion of a scientific method is fraught. What we have is a reasoned, social approach that engages with the world.