Page 1 of 5

From Subjective Facts to Objective Facts

Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2023 7:18 am
by Veritas Aequitas
There are no facts-in-themselves rather there are FSK conditioned facts which transits from subjective to objective facts.
The degree of objectivity will depend on the credibility and reliability of the FSK, of which at present, the scientific [also the mathematics] FSK is the most credible and reliable; it is used as standard to evaluate all other FSKs.

There are consideration of Subjective Facts, see;
The Objective Status of Subjective Facts
https://philarchive.org/archive/SANTOS-3

Here is how facts transit from subjective facts to objective facts.
Impenitent wrote: Mon Feb 20, 2023 1:34 am this creation is not a thing-in-itself?
can the thinker think about the thinker-in-itself?
no there is no thinker-in-itself...
do you think about the thinker (another person who you believe is thinking) as not being a thing-in-itself?
no, there is no thinker-in-itself...
I think therefore I-AM.
The "I-AM" is claimed by many to the thinker-in-itself.
To the theist, the I-AM, the thinker-in-itself is an independent entity that will survive physical death which will either go the heaven [if believer] or Hell [if non-believer or an forgivable sinner].

What is really going on with "I think therefore I-AM" is;
I [the thinker] thinks of 'therefore I-AM [thinker-in-itself]',
As such the "I -AM" [thinker in itself] is merely a thought/idea thought by the thinker.

The 'I-Think' that is thinking can be verified and justified empirically by the "I-think' itself based on its own experience which is empirical and externally by others and science as a human being that think with its "I-Think" self.

The "I-AM" as the thinker-in-itself is merely a thought and to think it is real is illusory.
Theists reify the illusory "I-AM' -thinker-in-itself as an independent soul that will survive physical death to either heaven or hell.

Re What is Fact,
People like PH, the situation is as follows;

PH is the experiencer of something, but his "I think" thinks there is a thing-in-itself or a fact-in-itself.
What I am saying is, the fact-in-itself or thing-in-itself is merely a thought by his I-think, it is never a real thing that can be verified nor justified empirically.

What is the more real fact is the 'experiencer-experiencing-of-something' which in totality is the fact.
It is not merely the thing-experienced is the fact, the real fact is the totality of experiencer-experiencing-of-something'. In a way, this is a subjective fact.

In this case, for something-X, say an apple,
in reference to humanity there would be > 8 billion different [experiencer-experiencing-of-something]s.
To have a shared common fact, we put those experiences [or a sample of it] through a Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].
The most reliable FSK is the science-FSK, which enable a scientific fact.

What is critical to note, this scientific fact is not a scientific-fact-in-itself because the scientific FSK inevitably is grounded upon human conditions.

What is a scientific fact is the whole "experiencer-experiencing-of-something plus conditioned upon the scientific FSK" wherein those who are not the specific scientists doing the experiment are in the process of exercising trust the scientific facts are indeed facts.

This scientific-fact as conditioned upon the scientific FSK is objective because it is not dependent on any individual's opinion, beliefs or judgment but conditioned upon the collective-of-subjects.

Thereafter whatever is known or described is not the whole scientific-fact per se.

Re: From Subjective Facts to Objective Facts

Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2023 7:56 am
by Skepdick
Still stuck in the quicksand of adjectives, I see.

A fact is a fact is a fact.

A subjective fact is still a fact.
An objective fact is still a fact.

An objective fact is not better; or worse than a subjective fact, because a fact is a fact is a fact.

Your entire problem goes away when you get rid of the subjective/objective distinction and all of its baggage.

The sufficient condition for turning the subjective into objective is a simple shift of perspective. From reporting on the world to reporting on my experiences of the world.

This tea is delicious <---- This is an opinion.
I think this tea is delicious. <----- This is a fact.

Boo hoo!

Re: From Subjective Facts to Objective Facts

Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2023 8:19 am
by Veritas Aequitas
Skepdick wrote: Mon Feb 20, 2023 7:56 am Still stuck in the quicksand of adjectives, I see.

A fact is a fact is a fact.

A subjective fact is still a fact.
An objective fact is still a fact.

An objective fact is not better; or worse than a subjective fact, because a fact is a fact is a fact.

Your entire problem goes away when you get rid of the subjective/objective distinction and all of its baggage.

The sufficient condition for turning the subjective into objective is a simple shift of perspective. From reporting on the world to reporting on my experiences of the world.

This tea is delicious <---- This is an opinion.
I think this tea is delicious. <----- This is a fact.

Boo hoo!
This tea is delicious <---- This is an opinion- subjective
I think this tea is delicious. <----- This is a mere thought of the thinker - subjective
"I think this tea is delicious" is a thinking process < ---- this is a fact - objective.

Re: From Subjective Facts to Objective Facts

Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2023 8:43 am
by Skepdick
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Feb 20, 2023 8:19 am
Skepdick wrote: Mon Feb 20, 2023 7:56 am Still stuck in the quicksand of adjectives, I see.

A fact is a fact is a fact.

A subjective fact is still a fact.
An objective fact is still a fact.

An objective fact is not better; or worse than a subjective fact, because a fact is a fact is a fact.

Your entire problem goes away when you get rid of the subjective/objective distinction and all of its baggage.

The sufficient condition for turning the subjective into objective is a simple shift of perspective. From reporting on the world to reporting on my experiences of the world.

This tea is delicious <---- This is an opinion.
I think this tea is delicious. <----- This is a fact.

Boo hoo!
This tea is delicious <---- This is an opinion- subjective
I think this tea is delicious. <----- This is a mere thought of the thinker - subjective
"I think this tea is delicious" is a thinking process < ---- this is a fact - objective.
No, idiot. The phrase "mere thought" serves the purpose of dismissal and lands you right back on the stupid philosophical merry go-round.

It is a fact THAT I think this tea is delicious - subjectivity; or objectivity is not even relevant.
I am describing an interaction between myself and the tea which has lead to me experiencing deliciousness.

All of that happened. It's a true account of events.

Any attempt to convince me otherwise amounts to intentional gaslighting on your part.

Re: From Subjective Facts to Objective Facts

Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2023 10:39 am
by Veritas Aequitas
Skepdick wrote: Mon Feb 20, 2023 8:43 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Feb 20, 2023 8:19 am
Skepdick wrote: Mon Feb 20, 2023 7:56 am Still stuck in the quicksand of adjectives, I see.

A fact is a fact is a fact.

A subjective fact is still a fact.
An objective fact is still a fact.

An objective fact is not better; or worse than a subjective fact, because a fact is a fact is a fact.

Your entire problem goes away when you get rid of the subjective/objective distinction and all of its baggage.

The sufficient condition for turning the subjective into objective is a simple shift of perspective. From reporting on the world to reporting on my experiences of the world.

This tea is delicious <---- This is an opinion.
I think this tea is delicious. <----- This is a fact.

Boo hoo!
This tea is delicious <---- This is an opinion- subjective
I think this tea is delicious. <----- This is a mere thought of the thinker - subjective
"I think this tea is delicious" is a thinking process < ---- this is a fact - objective.
No, idiot. The phrase "mere thought" serves the purpose of dismissal and lands you right back on the stupid philosophical merry go-round.

It is a fact THAT I think this tea is delicious - subjectivity; or objectivity is not even relevant.
I am describing an interaction between myself and the tea which has lead to me experiencing deliciousness.

All of that happened. It's a true account of events.
You are idioting yourself with your above response.

The point here is the above is expressed as a thought [think] by a subject, thus a subjective fact, even after you had drank a 1000 cups of tea.

If there is a society of tea-drinkers [you're a member] where all members agree tea is delicious, that would be conditioned upon the tea-club FSK, thus there is some degree of objectivity to that fact.
But since such objectivity is no where near the scientific standard of objectivity say at 100/100, the tea-club FSK objectivity would be say 10/100 which is 90/100 subjectivity.

But if you if you say the lemon juice is sour, that would be an empirical fact with high objectivity, thus an objective fact, because scientists has tested the existence of taste buds for sourness on the tongue that is present in all normal humans.
Sour taste: receptors, cells and circuit
shttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7943026/#

Any attempt to convince me otherwise amounts to intentional gaslighting on your part.
You just an intellectual cowards who is running from the truth in this case.

Re: From Subjective Facts to Objective Facts

Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2023 11:16 am
by Skepdick
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Feb 20, 2023 10:39 am
Skepdick wrote: Mon Feb 20, 2023 8:43 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Feb 20, 2023 8:19 am
This tea is delicious <---- This is an opinion- subjective
I think this tea is delicious. <----- This is a mere thought of the thinker - subjective
"I think this tea is delicious" is a thinking process < ---- this is a fact - objective.
No, idiot. The phrase "mere thought" serves the purpose of dismissal and lands you right back on the stupid philosophical merry go-round.

It is a fact THAT I think this tea is delicious - subjectivity; or objectivity is not even relevant.
I am describing an interaction between myself and the tea which has lead to me experiencing deliciousness.

All of that happened. It's a true account of events.
You are idioting yourself with your above response.

The point here is the above is expressed as a thought
No it isn't. You dumb fucking cunt.

The above is expressed as an expression. It's an expression ABOUT a thought.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Feb 20, 2023 10:39 am [think] by a subject, thus a subjective fact, even after you had drank a 1000 cups of tea.
Dumb fucking idiot.

There you are bringing the subjective/objective distinction into the dialogue.

And now you are back on your idiot-philosopher merry go-round.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Feb 20, 2023 10:39 am If there is a society of tea-drinkers [you're a member] where all members agree tea is delicious, that would be conditioned upon the tea-club FSK, thus there is some degree of objectivity to that fact.
Dumb fucking idiot. By introducing the adjectives "objective" and "subjective"you are dragging us back onto the stupid philosophical merry go-round.

Facts are facts are facts.

Subjectivity and objectivity are not relevant!

No society or an FSK is required for it to be a fact THAT I think my tea is delicious. Even if the entire planet hates tea - it still remains a fact that I find it delicious.

Even if it's locally true to me and to me only it's still true.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Feb 20, 2023 10:39 am But since such objectivity is no where near the scientific standard of objectivity say at 100/100, the tea-club FSK objectivity would be say 10/100 which is 90/100 subjectivity.
Dumb fucking idiot. I already explained it to you. Ceteris paribus the only difference between subjectiity and objectivity is a change in perspective/tone from 1st to 3rd person.

1st person expression: Tea is delicious
3rd person expression: I think tea is delicious.

In that tiny change of perspective I am no longer talking about the tea "in itself", I am talking about my experience of the tea.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Feb 20, 2023 10:39 am But if you if you say the lemon juice is sour, that would be an empirical fact with high objectivity, thus an objective fact, because scientists has tested the existence of taste buds for sourness on the tongue that is present in all normal humans.
Sour taste: receptors, cells and circuit
shttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7943026/#
Funny you should mention it - it's a fact THAT I don't think lemon juice is sour.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Feb 20, 2023 10:39 am You just an intellectual cowards who is running from the truth in this case.
Q.E.D

It is a fact THAT you think that I am an intellectual coward who is running from the truth.

Of course, it is a fact that you think that. And it is also a fact that I don't give a fuck what you think.

There are NO privileged descriptions. Despite your best effort to grant privilege to your descriptions.

Re: From Subjective Facts to Objective Facts

Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2023 12:41 pm
by Agent Smith
I'm happy to see that we've come so far. Subjective facts are objective facts, but it looks like we still haven't figured out why or how or ... ?

Re: From Subjective Facts to Objective Facts

Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2023 1:37 am
by Veritas Aequitas
Skepdick wrote: Mon Feb 20, 2023 11:16 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Feb 20, 2023 10:39 am
Skepdick wrote: Mon Feb 20, 2023 8:43 am
No, idiot. The phrase "mere thought" serves the purpose of dismissal and lands you right back on the stupid philosophical merry go-round.

It is a fact THAT I think this tea is delicious - subjectivity; or objectivity is not even relevant.
I am describing an interaction between myself and the tea which has lead to me experiencing deliciousness.

All of that happened. It's a true account of events.
You are idioting yourself with your above response.

The point here is the above is expressed as a thought
No it isn't. You dumb fucking cunt.

The above is expressed as an expression. It's an expression ABOUT a thought.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Feb 20, 2023 10:39 am [think] by a subject, thus a subjective fact, even after you had drank a 1000 cups of tea.
Dumb fucking idiot.

There you are bringing the subjective/objective distinction into the dialogue.

And now you are back on your idiot-philosopher merry go-round.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Feb 20, 2023 10:39 am If there is a society of tea-drinkers [you're a member] where all members agree tea is delicious, that would be conditioned upon the tea-club FSK, thus there is some degree of objectivity to that fact.
Dumb fucking idiot. By introducing the adjectives "objective" and "subjective"you are dragging us back onto the stupid philosophical merry go-round.

Facts are facts are facts.

Subjectivity and objectivity are not relevant!

No society or an FSK is required for it to be a fact THAT I think my tea is delicious. Even if the entire planet hates tea - it still remains a fact that I find it delicious.

Even if it's locally true to me and to me only it's still true.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Feb 20, 2023 10:39 am But since such objectivity is no where near the scientific standard of objectivity say at 100/100, the tea-club FSK objectivity would be say 10/100 which is 90/100 subjectivity.
Dumb fucking idiot. I already explained it to you. Ceteris paribus the only difference between subjectiity and objectivity is a change in perspective/tone from 1st to 3rd person.

1st person expression: Tea is delicious
3rd person expression: I think tea is delicious.

In that tiny change of perspective I am no longer talking about the tea "in itself", I am talking about my experience of the tea.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Feb 20, 2023 10:39 am But if you if you say the lemon juice is sour, that would be an empirical fact with high objectivity, thus an objective fact, because scientists has tested the existence of taste buds for sourness on the tongue that is present in all normal humans.
Sour taste: receptors, cells and circuit
shttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7943026/#
Funny you should mention it - it's a fact THAT I don't think lemon juice is sour.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Feb 20, 2023 10:39 am You just an intellectual cowards who is running from the truth in this case.
Q.E.D

It is a fact THAT you think that I am an intellectual coward who is running from the truth.

Of course, it is a fact that you think that. And it is also a fact that I don't give a fuck what you think.

There are NO privileged descriptions. Despite your best effort to grant privilege to your descriptions.
The more you counter as above, the more stupid you're.

Re: From Subjective Facts to Objective Facts

Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2023 2:10 am
by Veritas Aequitas
Agent Smith wrote: Mon Feb 20, 2023 12:41 pm I'm happy to see that we've come so far. Subjective facts are objective facts, but it looks like we still haven't figured out why or how or ... ?
Why and how..?

We need to define what is fact.

There are Two Senses of 'What is Fact'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587

We need to define what is objectivity:
Two Senses of 'Objective'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326

We need to define 'what is subjectivity'
The term [subjectivity] is most commonly used as an explanation for that which influences, informs, and biases people's judgments about truth or reality; it is the collection of the perceptions, experiences, expectations, and personal or cultural understanding of, and beliefs about, an external phenomenon, that are specific to a subject.[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity

Subjectivity is contrasted to the philosophy of objectivity, which is described as a view of truth or reality that is free of any individual's biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings.

Subjectivity and objectivity are usually seen as two directly opposing views; therefore, an understanding of one usually influences that of the other.

Since subjectivity and objectivity are in direct opposition, there is a continuum between them, such a degrees of greyness between black and white.

Facts can be subjective [relates to a subject or subjects] or objective when conditioned upon a collective of subjects [e.g. Scientific facts].

Point is in all cases, the necessary conclusions must be qualified, verified and justified.

What possible difficulties do you see?

Re: From Subjective Facts to Objective Facts

Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2023 5:57 am
by Skepdick
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Feb 21, 2023 1:37 am The more you counter as above, the more stupid you're.
That's true. But only because I am countering the most stupid person on this forum.

Re: From Subjective Facts to Objective Facts

Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2023 6:41 am
by Agent Smith
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Feb 21, 2023 2:10 am
Agent Smith wrote: Mon Feb 20, 2023 12:41 pm I'm happy to see that we've come so far. Subjective facts are objective facts, but it looks like we still haven't figured out why or how or ... ?
Why and how..?

We need to define what is fact.

There are Two Senses of 'What is Fact'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587

We need to define what is objectivity:
Two Senses of 'Objective'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326

We need to define 'what is subjectivity'
The term [subjectivity] is most commonly used as an explanation for that which influences, informs, and biases people's judgments about truth or reality; it is the collection of the perceptions, experiences, expectations, and personal or cultural understanding of, and beliefs about, an external phenomenon, that are specific to a subject.[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity

Subjectivity is contrasted to the philosophy of objectivity, which is described as a view of truth or reality that is free of any individual's biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings.

Subjectivity and objectivity are usually seen as two directly opposing views; therefore, an understanding of one usually influences that of the other.

Since subjectivity and objectivity are in direct opposition, there is a continuum between them, such a degrees of greyness between black and white.

Facts can be subjective [relates to a subject or subjects] or objective when conditioned upon a collective of subjects [e.g. Scientific facts].

Point is in all cases, the necessary conclusions must be qualified, verified and justified.

What possible difficulties do you see?
True that objectivity is preferred over subjectivity, but then subjective facts feels oxymoronish.

Re: From Subjective Facts to Objective Facts

Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2023 6:56 am
by Skepdick
Agent Smith wrote: Tue Feb 21, 2023 6:41 am True that objectivity is preferred over subjectivity, but then subjective facts feels oxymoronish.
That's the entire sleight of hand. There's no magic behind the trick.

VA is trying to promote certain facts to higher social status; and he is not ashamed to exploit pre-existing social stigma and trademark recognition (like objectivity being prefered to subjectivity) to peddle his sub-par quality goods.

Re: From Subjective Facts to Objective Facts

Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2023 7:26 am
by Iwannaplato
Skepdick wrote: Tue Feb 21, 2023 6:56 am
Agent Smith wrote: Tue Feb 21, 2023 6:41 am True that objectivity is preferred over subjectivity, but then subjective facts feels oxymoronish.
That's the entire sleight of hand. There's no magic behind the trick.

VA is trying to promote certain facts to higher social status; and he is not ashamed to exploit pre-existing social stigma and trademark recognition (like objectivity being prefered to subjectivity) to peddle his sub-par quality goods.
Sub-par in what sense. I'm asking because they wouldn't be subpar, from your perspective, due to a lack of being objective (or?).
In what category are they sub-par?

Re: From Subjective Facts to Objective Facts

Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2023 7:30 am
by Skepdick
Iwannaplato wrote: Tue Feb 21, 2023 7:26 am
Skepdick wrote: Tue Feb 21, 2023 6:56 am
Agent Smith wrote: Tue Feb 21, 2023 6:41 am True that objectivity is preferred over subjectivity, but then subjective facts feels oxymoronish.
That's the entire sleight of hand. There's no magic behind the trick.

VA is trying to promote certain facts to higher social status; and he is not ashamed to exploit pre-existing social stigma and trademark recognition (like objectivity being prefered to subjectivity) to peddle his sub-par quality goods.
Sub-par in what sense. I'm asking because they wouldn't be subpar, from your perspective, due to a lack of being objective (or?).
In what category are they sub-par?
In the theory-construction category.

He's injecting values/preferences in the meta-theory which directly affects how his main theory functions, while hoping that we wouldn't notice.

His meta-theory mechanics are thus:

1. Dualise: facts -> objective facts + subjective facts.
2. Rank arbitrarily: objective facts > subjective facts.

Neither step in the process is justified, but it is necessary for his conclusion in the main theory.

He's just being intellectually dishonest in that he's constructing a theory for an ellaborate "Begging the question" fallacy. Without the steps above value-judgments are not possible.

After all why aren't subjective facts as good as; or better than objective facts?

Re: From Subjective Facts to Objective Facts

Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2023 7:44 am
by Agent Smith
Skepdick wrote: Tue Feb 21, 2023 6:56 am
Agent Smith wrote: Tue Feb 21, 2023 6:41 am True that objectivity is preferred over subjectivity, but then subjective facts feels oxymoronish.
That's the entire sleight of hand. There's no magic behind the trick.

VA is trying to promote certain facts to higher social status; and he is not ashamed to exploit pre-existing social stigma and trademark recognition (like objectivity being prefered to subjectivity) to peddle his sub-par quality goods.
That's a possibility we have to consider, but let's hear him/her out. He seems on to something but I can't quite put my finger on it.