₦airaland Forum

[quote author=budaatum post=66875488]

My aim of the thread is to keep discussions on objectivity and subjectivity in one single easy to follow thread instead of spreading it across numerous threads. Participants may have other aims personal to themselves.

interesting.

The subjective view is not encouraged in science as it cannot objectively be verified or falsified (tested, you would say). That is not to say that in all spheres of life, you discard subjective truth (for which I give two opinions below).

Science is interested in answering questions and acquiring knowledge concerning the observable universe and this cannot be done subjectively as it will contradict scientific methodology even if the the researcher has a good intention.the goals of scientific research are: description, prediction, and explanation/understanding. some individual had controlling and application to the list of the goals. All these cannot be subjective, it must be objective for the goals to be achieve .

A subjective truth is a truth based off of a person's perspective, feelings, or opinions. Everything we know is based off of our input - our senses, our perception. Thus, everything we know is subjective. All truths are subjective.

TO a large extent, i welcome this line of thought , all truths are subjective , however knowledge cannot be subjective, as it is always about something. What we know is knowledge. The thing is the thing.our objective truth is about aligning statements with reality itself. And no, this alignment is not subjective,if it is knowledge will not exist. However, this alignment can only be an approximation. “orange” is never an orange. Words are words, and not the things they represent,The purest form of truth is thus reality itself. The purest form of objectivity is also reality itself.But reality itself is not knowledge of itself.And this is the alignment you are looking for if understanding these patterns is your goal.
Subjectivity strays from objective truth.However, there is objective truth to any subjectivity or falsehood. These are patterns too that can be documented. And being that we are so full of these patterns also, knowing the objective truth about our subjective falsehood is a science in itself.Science is the act of describing the world by aligning objectively true statements with reality itself. Our imagination is most certainly a big part of the world.

To say that something is “subjectively true” means that it is true for the person(s) making the judgment, even though it may not be true for others.

this is the parallel between subjectivity and objectivity as i show to you in our discussion on butter thread.

Some even claim that the objective view of the scientist is still tainted with subjectivity as the scientist is speaking from their own perspective.

this idea is what is stopping or hurting the progress of science, An example of this can be found with global warming or climate change. Some scientists believe that the modern weather we have is the result of normal fluctuations in patterns, others believe that human activities have changed the Earth's weather patterns. even Donald trump employ his own scientist to formulate theories that suit his own interest, he declare global warming is not true. No consensus agreement.

But on a personal level, if I go to the doctor and say I have a pain in my head, I am giving a subjective opinion. The doctor will not say I have no pain because they can't measure my pain with their objective pain meter! Your request therefore, to discard the subjective view, is declined.

i will never discard your subjective truth,it is your own personal truth which i welcome, the doctor position as a scientist, it is to apply an objective diagnosed on such a patient, and if the symptoms meet objective symptoms that is attributed to a headache patient, then objective drug will be administer. the doctor can not diagnosed you subjectively as that will be unscientific. only a marabout can do that.

No! What objective evidence is there for or against gods? Would the god-believers and non-god-believers therefore agree that they have no knowledge to share? I don't think so. Just look at the number of threads set up on either side for sharing the subjective opinion for and against gods.

The existence and non existence of GOD is both faith based, if faith based can be tantamount to position of knowledge by some individual, i have no problem to argue it. believers prefer to break-even rather than lost entirely if profit is not achievable, while non believer which to either lost or make profit at least in this business of life. it is a decision we all made base on personal interest. even Science is based on faith( we have treat this once before)it is taken to be ideas that are consider to be true. faiths in science are a bit different from other faith of believers, scientific faith rested on research to support them that have been accepted as true for the sake of mental convenience . The faith made in science are based on observations about the natural world and form the foundations of hypotheses and theories. Scientific as include the idea that observations about the world around us have natural explanations and that these occurrences are predictable. For instance, if you were to drop a ball, you may predict that the ball will fall down unless another force makes it move in another direction. The assumption/ faith is that the ball will fall down because of gravity.

The fact is that we share subjective knowledge everyday even more so than we share objective knowledge. And claiming educators are objective is naive, at best. They can only be objective if all they taught were the facts, and there is quite a lot of debate on how fact based education does not encourage the use of the mind and creates unthinking individuals.

this will be an interesting topic, you may create something of such in the future, HOW TRUST WORDY ARE THE EDUCATION WE RECEIVED IN OUR EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE. i will not go deeper here so as to not to derail the op.

Please note that while I wish that what I write is objective, I am fully aware that all I write is subjective, even when I provide objective evidence to support it.

ok

No! In reality, we actually live our lives based on a very subjective reality and function adequately and always have! Of course, when the objective reality contradicts my subjectivity and I insist on holding my subjective view, there is catastrophe, but I can pretty much go on for a while on the figments of my imaginations, and the human race has done so for centuries (i.e. the subjective view that the earth was the centre of the universe, or the once held view amongst some that it was the raising up of a donkeys hindlegs that got maidens pregnant.) A certain George Soros wrote extensively on the problem of ones subjective view diverging from objective reality. He called it [url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflexivity_%28social_theory%29?wprov=sfla1]Reflexivity[/url].

That said, it is our subjective ignorant conclusions that we build on to attain an objective view of all that surrounds us. But let us not delude ourselves in thinking we are objective, when in reality we are trapped in our very own subjectivity


As an aside, I am amused, by the way, that you have not yet picked up on the fact that if I am arguing for the validity of the subjective view, then why would I argue against the subjects view of gods, which you know I do discard!

we should learn to separate objective reality from subjective reality. doing this we make us understand our selves better. i am surprised you are arguing for subjectivity, even when you claim you reject it in our last discussion, i must have really change your perspective.

budaatum:
Hui-neng, a well-respected Buddhist monk who later became known as the founder of the Zen school, one day happened to be passing by two monks who were arguing about the temple flag waving in the wind.

One said, "The flag moves."

The other said, "The wind moves."

They argued back and forth but could not agree.

The Sixth Ancestor said, "Gentlemen! It is not the wind that moves; it is not the flag that moves; it is your mind that moves."

The ultimate physical reality is nothing but a multitude of separate revolving centers of electric force. ''What we call truth lies in the rational harmony between the subjective and objective aspects of reality, both of which belong to the super-personal man''. philosopher Tagore

[quote author=budaatum post=66830392]

Vaxx, I've moved us here. By now I'm sure you realise you and I are going to be flogging this horse for a long time to come, so, from now on, if you don't mind, lets always return to this thread.

Good, but i will like to know the aim of this thread, is it to ascertain that truth can only be objective while subjective truth should be discarded.or subjective truth can also be verified scientifically ?

Yes, "objectivity is an ideal for science". Unfortunately, science is done by individuals (subjects), with perspectives. It is these perspectives that introduce the subjective into science, and while we might idealise and claim we are perfect, surely, we can only be lying! The article from Stanford states it as "several conceptions of the ideal of objectivity are either questionable or unattainable".

Ideas that show objectivity are based on facts and are free from bias or personal opinion. In science, even hypotheses, or ideas about how something may work, are written in a way that are objective,though objective does not make it absolutely true, it has just given us enough explanation to completely trust it regardless of what might seem ridiculous. but whether it is objective or subjective, absolute “Truth” is beyond the reach of humanity and whatever we assume as truth is relative & subject to time place and circumstances and should be identified as “Realistic Truth” “Absolute Truth” is beyond the reach of humanity, as it is shrouded in mystery.

"The prospects for a science providing a non-perspectival “view from nowhere” or for proceeding in a way uninformed by human goals and values are fairly slim, for example."

That, though is not to claim objectivity is impossible, but that if there is no objectivity (or if it is subjective) then it cannot be scientific.

Our discussion itself, is skewed by our subjective understandings, for has the Stanford article not been brought up to justify my position too at some time in the past when discussing this same subject?

the concept of "knowledge'' we are sharing here depends upon on objective evidence. If there is know one, and there is nothing commonly agree to know, you and i will not be able to know anything at all and the importance of education will be jeopardize, subjective evidence is limited to personal truth, but to understand the interpersonal truth between human and its universe, we have to accept the existence of an objective reality as a premise in order to function in the world. If an objective evidence does not exist, then all of our actions are meaningless, and it is impossible for humans to acquire knowledge about the world, since my knowledge about a particular topic can disagree with your knowledge, and yet they can both still be right. science is the interpersonal truth between man and the universe. it is rested on empiricism, therefore objectively possible, subjective is our personal truth,and it is rested on our feelings and experience so it is also possible as well. we should just learn to treat them separately so we do not intermingled them.

Your definition is limited in scope, in philosophy of science , Scientific objectivity is a characteristic of scientific claims, methods and results. It expresses the idea that the claims, methods and results of science are not, or should not be influenced by particular perspectives, value commitments, community bias or personal interests, to name a few relevant factors. Objectivity is often considered as an ideal for scientific inquiry, as a good reason for valuing scientific knowledge, and as the basis of the authority of science in society(https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-objectivity/). while subjectivity in philosophy is divided into thee definition, it Three common definitions include that subjectivity is the quality or condition of:Something being a subject, narrowly meaning an individual who possesses conscious experiences, such as perspectives, feelings, beliefs, and desires.Something being a subject, broadly meaning an entity that has agency, meaning that it acts upon or wields power over some other entity (an object).Some information, idea, situation, or physical thing considered true only from the perspective of a subject or subjects(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity).
[quote author=budaatum post=66804919]

I guess we aren't  making as much progress as I hoped, so let me start with a definition

An objective claim is a statement about a factual matter-one that can be proved true or false. ... A subjective claim, on the other hand, is not a factual matter; it is an expression of belief, opinion, or personal preference.

You must be confusing even to yourself. What objective evidence would you find to support the statement "Prince Harry is the current president of Nigeria"? Is it not simply my objective opinion? Is it a valid claim?

o lawwd, The objective evidence in the statement that pointed to ''prince harry'' being the president of Nigeria is the empiricism of that claim, it can be verified,analysed and scrutinized using scientific glasses. data can be obtain from the legitimate authority, like the consulate office if the claim were to be made outside Nigeria, or from the attorney General office at home. subjectivity claim is a personal truth.

But before verification, it is my subjective opinion. It is only on scrutiny that we can determine if it is objective as well. My statement "Prince Harry is the current president of Nigeria", remains subjective until subjected to scrutiny. If objective evidence is found to support it, then and only the can it become an objective statement.

this is pseudo science, you do not scrutinized element or statement that lack empiricism, science depends heavily on observational evidence, any element or statement that fall outside empiricism is not science, the truer nature of that statement rely heavily on a subjective analyses which is rotted into pure philosophy.

I don't know why you chose to write "subjective analyses". Its a new introduction by you!

subjective analyses can only be validate thru logic and not science, it lack empiricism.

Subjective statements, on the other hand, can be subjected to scientific scrutiny! My subjective statement "Prince Harry is the current president of Nigeria", is scientifically scrutinised by asking the Attorney General of the Federal Republic of Nigeria who the current president is! It will be objectively falsified of course, but we only know this by subjecting it to scrutiny.

false, work with the above definition i provided, you can only analysed subjective evidence base on logic and not and scientific ground.
again ''ANY'' element or statement that can be proven empirically is not subjective

All science discoveries start with the scientist forming an opinion which by nature is subjective. They would then observe empirical (objective) evidence which would verify or falsify their opinion. In effect, science can be called the process of objectifying subjective opinion.

false again ''scientific hypothesis is Scientific hypothesis, it is an idea that proposes a tentative explanation about a phenomenon or a narrow set of phenomena OBSERVED in the natural world. The two primary features of a scientific hypothesis are falsifiability and testability, which are reflected in an ''If...then” statement summarizing the idea and in the ability to be supported or refuted through observation and experimentation''. Austrian-born British philosopher Karl Popper. subjective evidence can not be falsified or tested.

Agreed. Any statement that objective evidence cannot support is subjective, period.

And likewise any statement that cannot be empirically proven is subjective

There is a scientific method to measure half a litre of water in a glass that holds one litre. If I get you to measure the water in the glass when it is full, you will find it to be the objective one litre, and if I measure out half of that, you will find it to contain half a litre of water so it is essentially objectively half full of water and half empty. But I'll admit its hair splitting.

Discarding evidence while debating the one consider suitable is called bias and not academic. my earlier response on this evidence refuted this analogy.

budaatum:
Good, some progress at last! Subjective views, as in one's personal opinion, can be verified or falsified objectively, however. It is my subjective opinion that 'Buhari is the current president of Nigeria'. It just so happens that my subjective opinion in this case, can be objectively verified to be true, while my, also subjective statement, that Prince Harry is the current president of Nigeria, can be objectively falsified.

Even after taking my time to analysed the two context with examples giving to each of them '' objective and subjective evidence , you are still making this bogus claim. making claims that can be scrutinized using scientific glass is not subjective, it is objective. opinion made that lack scientific evidence is what make it a subjective claim. making such claim like prince harry the president of NIGERIA is objective claim, it can be scientifically verified, it is empirical claim .

Both can be said to be my subjective opinions. It just so happens that when we subject both statements to analysis, one corresponds to reality, it is supported by objective fact regardless of my personal opinion, while the other doesn't and has no objective evidence to support its validity. To borrow your words, "scientific analysis to identify an object, measure, quantify or qualify for various parameters and confirm the result", in either case.

False, if your personal opinion can be empirically verified, then it become objective,subjectivity claim it an evidence that lack empirical analyses, i indicate some examples, i do not think you go through them. subjective evidence is a claim make on personal experience that the only the individual in question can verified his or her own claim.

No, not true. Read the above again. Both statements of mine about the current president of Nigeria are my subjective view. Both can "be subjected to scientific analysis" and will be verified or falsified with the objective evidence, as in evidence not based on my opinion, like asking the Attorney General of Nigeria who the current president of Nigeria is.

subjective analyses cannot be subjected to scientifically scrutinized because it lacks the tools to do so, it is empirical analyses that are objectively verified.

Not so simple I am afraid. Yes, "objective is independent of subject", but statements about things are always subjective, its just that some subjective statements can also be objective, (i.e. if they correspond to objective facts), or not, (i.e. if there is no Attorney General to ask or any other external evidence to objectively test for validity).

objectivity rely on Science, science depends upon empiricism. Empiricism depends upon independent verifiability. NO subjective statement can be objective, it is a fallacy, because subjective statement lack empiricism.

And that is the complexity of objectivity and subjectivity. It is not some thing on a straight line scale with objectivity on one end, and subjectivity on the other end of the scale.

science, is and must be silent about anything that cannot be verified by independent observers. This is a nontrivial amount of information, not all of which is matters of opinion like “What’s your favorite color?” There is a huge number of statements out there that cannot ever be independently verified because no one has access to that kind of information. objectivity evidence will not work in this context.

One could indeed argue that a glass half full or half empty is subjective opinion. However, it can also be objective that a glass is half full and half empty if the case is such that it contains half of what it can contain. A glass that can take one litre of water is half full and half empty if only half a litre is accurately measured and poured into the glass. We can measure it objectively to verify whether our subjective opinion is valid.

sure, we can both objectively determine whether or not the glass is "half empty" or "half full" by considering the subjective action that led to the glass being half filled, but assigning "half empty" or "half full" is still subjective.There is no objective answer because the glass simply exists as it is, and meaning is provided by a subjective point of view that considers the objective subjectivity behind the glass' state.
To definitively determine if a glass is "half empty" or "half full" is to remove the objectivity of your observation...as soon as you define it, it becomes a subjective definition. You can clarify why you subjectively think the glass is one way or another but not the other way round.in addition to the earlier given example, You may consider a particular film as the best film ever (but some other person may not like it at all), so it is subjective. Or You might consider that APC is the most honest party and the best option to vote for in the next elections, this is a subjective truth. this cannot be objectively verified as there is no scientific tool to do so.

A statement is said to be subjective in as much as it is one made by an individual, the subject. It can be a true statement or a false one. A statement is said to be objectively true if evidence outside the subject corresponds to it, i.e. the statement, 'Buhari is the current president of Nigeria', is a statement subject to me, but also objectively verifiable by asking the Attorney General, and if he agrees, we can say it is objectively true. There is no objective evidence to validate the equally subjective statement that 'Prince Harry is the current president of Nigeria'. We can objectively test It of course, by asking the Attorney General, but if he says it is not so, we would claim it is a subjective statement that is objectively false.

false, it is said to be objective if the method of verifying the statement made by you is adapted in testing and analyzing is accepted by all. it is said to be subjective if The truth one believes is dependent on one’s knowledge, understanding
and experience.

Einstein and Newton made subjective observations. They then looked at the objective evidence, which is what scientists rely on, and it corroborated their subjective opinion. Regardless of who looks at the evidence, they will come to the same conclusions they both came to. This is what the scientific method is based on and why there is an insistence on peer reviews.

false, Einstein and newton make objective observation,not subjective, the method they used in carry out this method is empirical, therefore scientific. Science is about seeing things happen and trying to explain them, though it is more than that. It is about processes that are never finished; if they were, it would not be science.There's many-a-slip from the first attempt to make observations of what is seen happening, to the conclusion of what might be seen as a fundamental truth.

Newton's error was simply in assuming that the way things work on earth is how they work all over the universe, which is not so much the case, as subsequent examination showed. Newton's laws are still valid within the parameters of earth.

Newton was not wrong, he only contribute his own qota which was adjusted, as science itself entails, the truth of science is not about finding absolute truth and it never will it be. Science is about shaping and re-shaping explanations that fit what is seen happening. that is why every scientific law made earlier will still be shape and reshape. science itself provide process of testing this explanation and Through these iterative processes, scientific explanations can get better.

Phew! You sure make me work for it vaxx!

Ebeneezer.

budaatum:
Are you trying to educate me on objectivity and subjectivity?

1. There is nothing objective about saying "Prince Harry is the current president of Nigeria". There is no evidence to support it. It is at best, a subjective lie, as in, one made up by a subject, myself, with no external objective evidence to support it! He may be the president in the future, but my original statement intentionally included the word "current" because I know you have a tendency to shift ground as you did.

2. While the statement, "Buhari is the current evidence of Nigeria", can be, and is a statement that is made by a subject me, hence making it subjective, there is also objective evidence, the Attorney General, to corroborate it. So it is objectively true, currently.

3. I once proposed the further scrutiny of H2O, which you claimed required no further scrutiny, so who are you arguing with about not scrutinising things? Even further scrutiny of gods, be it Yahweh or Olodumare is acceptable to me because what may seem like absolute truth about them may turn out, and usually does turn out not to be true on further scrutiny. But before you go off on one again, I am not advocating an infinite regression of scrutiny! Once the Attorney General confirms who the current president is, there is no point in further seeking for who the current president is unless a different 'current' occurs, like say in the year 2030! And neither am I not advocating no scrutiny at all, of, and most especially where gods are concerned, as I have found they are usually used to fill the gap when people don't really know.

Ps. I ask not that you read my response to yours above, but read your own last response. I propose that while it may make sense to you, try reading it objectively, devoid of your subjective meaning, and tell me what you make of it. Do you think it can be understood as clearly as you may understand it?

i must be realistic here, i need to educate on the two concept .... '' objectivity and subjectivity'' if not your perceptive will never change. objectivity falls under the scientific analysis to identify an object, measure, quantify or qualify for various parameters and confirm the result, which is a reality to the given circumstances, place and time while subjectivity falls under one’s personal impressions, feelings, views or opinions, rather than external decision. It cannot be subjected to scientific analysis or observation and there is no way to confirm affirmatively or refer to any established norm in which we both work with.

these are some examples to indicate objectivity and Subjectivity:-

Objectivity:-

1.Human evolve form apes like animal

2. sun rises in the east and set in the west

3. Planets revolve round the Sun

4. Man has 2 Eyes, 2 Hands, 2 Ears, 2 Legs , ABUJA is the FCT of NIGERIA

Subjectivity:-

1. The cause of the universe is uncaused

2. Mind controls our actions

3. Rebirth after death is imminent

4. Soul does not die but the body dies.

CONCLUSIONS:-

Objectivity is based on science and Subjectivity is based on philosophical or personal opinion, but both moves towards “Realistic Truth”, subject to time, place & circumstances.

A glass half full is also half empty. The truth here is subject to the viewer. Objective is independent of subject.

when i made mention that THE component of water does not need further explanation, it a statement on relativity not absolute, just like when Newton’s laws were accepted as truth until Einstein came along to make adjustment. Someone will probably adjust Einstein’s findings later. Neither were wrong; they just left out things. while the absolute truth is still shrouded in mystery. i will not be able to pen down much , i need to attend to some basic things. you can drop your reply, i will reply you better tomorrow.

[quote author=budaatum post=66737942]

Some claims are untrue. An example is, 'Prince Harry is the current President of Nigeria', and it does not matter how strongly I, in my subjective right, make that statement, it is untrue, and everyone knows it to be untrue. Yet, as you claim, truth is subjective, even though you will probably claim Prince Harry is most certainly not the current President of Nigeria. And I might have difficulty providing objective evidence to prove it is a true and valid statement if you were to ask me for evidence to collaborate my assertion. Surely, both our contradicting statements regarding whether Prince Harry is the current president of Nigeria or not cannot be true. So how is truth subjective in this case especially when it fails to correspond to objective reality?

Prince Harry as the current president of Nigeria is a claim that fall under objective claim and not subjective claim even with the objective evidence that ''prince harry is not the president of NIGERIA, this can still change overtime base on time, place and circumstances, which means this truth cannot stand the test of time. What is assumed as truth is only a “Reality” for given situation since “Absolute Truth” is not reachable. Do not overlaps objective truth with subjective truth, for subjective It cannot be subjected to scientific analysis or observation and there is no way to confirm affirmatively or refer to it base on what is objectively accepted, The truth one believes is dependent on one’s knowledge, understanding and experience which cannot be proven to be false. so making a claim that '' prince harry is the president of NIGERIA is an objective claim and not subjective since it can be objectively verified base on what is objectively accepted.(note that, verification of objective evidence is accepted base on mental convenience).so whether it is subjective or objective, the truth is only relative and realistic based on time, place & circumstances and “Absolute Truth” is beyond the reach of humanity, as it is shrouded in mystery.

Now look at the statement "Muhammad Buhari is the current president of Nigeria". It's still my subjective opinion, but I can provide objective evidence, like a statement from the Attorney General of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, confirming it is true. Or would that not be objective enough for you?

this is an objective claim and not subjective. you need to check on what can be consider objective and what can be consider subjective . so that you will not be overlapping it. The simple way to know this is to consider objective claim as what is universally accepted to be fact for the sake of mental convenience while subjective claims is simply an individual choices of claim .

Oh my! I think you mistake 'parameter' to mean something else! No one is suggesting they are fixed. However, we fix them in order to take measurements or make observations. This is the same error I tried pointing out in your driver analogy. You fixed the parameter as "permission was required from another driver, who required permission from another driver ad infinitum". Then you complain that the driver never gets to drive since another driver's permission will constantly have to be sought. If you wanted a driver to drive, why set up the parameter in the first place?

It is the same error butter makes in claiming all effects have a cause. If all effects have a cause, how come you nullify that statement with the exception. Once you have, it makes the initial statement "all effects have a cause", invalid, since by his own admission, at least one effect, god, has no cause.

This is an issue when we begin to use one own perspective to look at one thing, it makes us close minded. most the '' cause '' be bound by the same theory, the uncause is not contingent and it is necessary, therefore it can be independent on his own,just like sub atomic particles. for instance the minister of transportation can not be bound by the law given to the bus coaches since he is not a driver, the minister is necessary to appoint the drivers but the drivers cannot by themselves become independent without instruction from the minister. but what of a case of a loose system? that is my argument.

Now, take the following statement about Gravity, the universal force of attraction acting between all matter:

On Earth all bodies have a weight, or downward force of gravity, proportional to their mass, which Earth’s mass exerts on them. Gravity is measured by the acceleration that it gives to freely falling objects. At Earth’s surface the acceleration of gravity is about 9.8 metres (32 feet) per second per second. Thus, for every second an object is in free fall, its speed increases by about 9.8 metres per second.

The 'parameter', which is the limit or boundary which defines the scope of a particular process or activity (gravity in this case), is 'Earth'. Basically, on 'Earth', 'gravity is about 9.8 metres per second per second'.

Now read the following:

At the surface of the Moon the acceleration of a freely falling body is about 1.6 metres per second per second.

Different 'parameter' - the moon, different measurement of gravity - 1.6 metres per second per second.

Are you trying to educate me on gravitational law? if so that is not what i ask of , i only postulate that no sciencetical law which law of gravity is no exception is immune to scrutiny,since it is base on time , space, resources and circumstances.in other words science does not presume they are general law that govern the behavior of the universe . No scientific theory/belief/fact/law is immune to scrutiny. Even if it is consistent with whatever we know at present, it will be disputed if it is inconsistent with one experiment/observation. therefore science is not absolute true

What "absolute truth" are you referring to exactly?

In general, absolute truth is whatever is always valid, regardless of parameters or context, emotions, personal inference or logical conclusion. it transcend all these. i prefer to call the absolute truth olodumare in my own perspective,THE only consciousness that exist , every other things are simply electric magnetic wave.

No scientific laws are considered absolute truths within the scientific community. A “law”, once accepted, sets the expectations for observations made under the circumstances covered by the lay. If new observations under the proper circumstances are later accepted as contradicting the law, then the law is rejected or modified or the circumstances are revised

Its actual quantity, which is location dependent, as opposed to person dependent, while not constant everywhere, is not subjective at all. No one can stand on the moon and claim a gravitational force of 9.8 metres per second per second and hope to be taken seriously! Not by people with brains, at least!

AS i said earlier , you need not to overlaps, there is difference between them, and both cannot be apply for the same concept.i will be glad you study where, how and ways of using them.objective and subjective claim.

budaatum:
You keep making this erroneous claim, with no evidence to support it. Personally, I wish it were true. I could subjectively tell the Ferrari salesman I have a million pounds in my bank account, write a cheque and drive out of the showroom with a brand spanking new red Ferrari.

The fact is that things we know, and call 'knowledge' - if you mean, "facts that are valid", in that they are statements that "correspond to reality" - are not dependant on an observer. If they, any statement made by anyone would be true if they claimed it was.

My claim can only become erroneous if your rebuttal is in anyway accurate,my evidence are tautology at best not necessarily the absolute truth, it is subjective,There is no absolute truth anywhere. Everybody validate or makes claims all the time, because each word that are used in their claims comes from just one source, you, or some other individual.Even if you have a solid scientific truth, like gravity, there is total and constant change across the entire Universe, so the parameters are never fixed. To what degree can we access the absolute truth is the question we can only tackle and not the absolute truth itself. The best way we have of doing that is through the methods of science. It does not give us direct access to absolute truths, but give us provisional truths which are better and better approximations to reality as time goes by. what we can do as of now is to depend on some tautology for is survival. and this will be consider subjective truth.

Philosophers have come up with a number of different possibilities for what is true or not. There is correspondence theory, the pragmatic theory, the coherence theory, various permutations and combinations of these and other ideas. Google it and you will find many well written sources.

frank317:
I really will not be patiemt enough to go through the thread as it os a long one... for now pls based om ir knpwledge that the universe was creates by an uncaused cause... can u confirm with prove that it is a singular uncaused cause? Further clarify where this uncaused cause lives and how it/he/they look like.

The fist four page of that thread will have put paid to you question.

budaatum:
(In borrowing from a previous post, I might have modified the original in error!)



Are you just failing to recognise rules set by you? In either scenario, if permission is required, driver or soldier has no choice but to seek it. And if it means no shooting or driving is done, so be it. The stupidity of such as system where permission is sought ad infinitum is the sole reason we don't set things up that way and set a limit on how many permissions would be required.

However, op has set up such a system with his statement
"Every effect has a cause and every cause has an effect", but which he wants to get out of by claiming, "except god". And the only evidence he has for such a claim is his say so! And this he calls scientific! Does he not understand that therefore means
some, and not the every that he claims? Oh, I guess his argument falls apart if he admits that!

Seriously, on that basis, I wonder why one should bother claiming god done it. He might as well claim he is the first permission, except we'd probably all say he's mad, has a demon in him, and crucify his black ass!

o lawwd. you still cannot get it after simplifying it to the lowest minimum . i give up

frank317:
how do u call assumptions knowledge?

since its knowledge why has butterflylion failed to answer detailed questions based on this knowledge or can u help him out?

so since ur hypothetical stand on uncaused cause, can you tell ur if this uncaused cause is single or multiple? Can you confidently tell me that God (the direct cause of the universe based on this thread) was not caused by the real uncaused cause(s)?

your answer will be very much appreciated

it is not an assumption, it is from the position of knowledge. so the knowledge being true or false is base on human subjectivity. i face a similar question like this with a moniker named zahra, go thru the thread and post your question here... https://www.nairaland.com/4115579/why-there-something-rather-than

budaatum:
I do get your analogy vaxx, it just doesn't make sense.

You say I need permission from another driver who in turn needs permission from another driver till infinity. If that is the case, then we'd just have to keep asking permission from another driver till we give up and just find another means of getting to where we want to get to. And that will apply as long as we continue to need the permission of another driver.

If however, at some point of asking another driver, I can get tired of asking another driver and just jump in the car and drive it, then I mustn't have needed the permission in the first place and shouldn't have bothered with the rule to begin with.

So which is it, do I need any permissions to drive the car or could I just say "to hell with it", jump in the car and drive off?





What I'm saying is, write clearly so you can be understood!

Saying it does not make sense is a position of subjectivity which i agree, i my self found the analogy matured and logical. supposing we change the character of a car driver in that scenario to a solder in the military who depends on another commandant to fire or shoot, and this commandant also depend on another commandant till it goes to infinity, when we the solder shoot? in a hierarchical format, you cannot take decision on your own. you depend on another authority to give you a go ahead. but it will get to a stage where the authority in that position do not depend on any command, but assuming it is loose. how will that be possible?

in an organised settings, for example a bus terminal, the bus coach has an instruction to follow, the time she must live and when she must arrive, the speed at which she can move, the numbers of time she must stop on the way, the places she must stop for rest before reaching the main destination and likewise the weight of the overall luggage she must carry. etc. so she is under rules and instruction. so no coach can just jump into the bus and move when instructions is yet to be given.


ok i hope this one is clear enough, but if not, please let me know .

[quote author=budaatum post=66718877]

One can justify anything one wants if one tried hard enough. Some people justify blowing up those who don't believe what they believe, for instance, but not many would agree with their justification now, or would we?

justification in this sense is to establish one believes as a real knowledge instead of just some believe, but trying to justify real knowledge is absurd as it violate philosophy and scientific explanation, for example if proposition B justifies A, and proposition C justifies B, and proposition D justifies C, it is possible that this process may not possess a founding proposition that can justify the previous set of propositions and the process of justification will surely go on into infinity and in other not to be wounded, we settle at real knowledge.

The fact is that one's justifications can be based on one's subjective viewpoint, which basically amounts to "because I said so", and which is what butter is attempting to do on here. He is bound to hit against someone else's subjective "because I said so too", as he seems to have done. It is the reason we ask for evidence beyond "because I said sos"!

Even with objectively justification of Global warming, Donald trump subjectively dismissed it.This is an evidence of the parallel we have in our real knowledge. some people will justify the act of bombing those who do not believe what they believe while some people will found it absurd . it is all on the position of real knowledge.

frank317:
I am yet to see how uncaused cause is justified by anyone.

just like how infinite regress is a position of ignorance, the hypothetical stand on uncause cause is a knowledge base position.

frank317:
If infinite regression is impossible, why then do Christians insist that every creation MUST have a creator? Why do they insist that every driver must have a superior who he must take permission from

i do not think it is all about Christianity only, even pagan, atheist everybody regardless of their faith and knowledge often justify the believes, wanting to ascertain or establish that their beliefs as real knowledge, not just that, and in doing so we nominate something else outside the premises as a justifier . we back it up or use it to support it. for instance Muslim back up the VALIDITY OF quran using ALLAH and that is their real knowledge status. for example , i believe the water is colorless, i justify it by looking at the water and i observed it is colorless.so if my observation is questioned, which means i have to also justify my observation( for example, how do i know that what i observed in the water is indeed colorless)and we repeat this infinitely, will it not become problem? in fact it will indeed turn to knowledge problem. read more on the concept called knowledge problem in philosophy online.

[quote author=budaatum post=66717286]

Your question was rather meaningless since no one has decided a I needs the permission of another driver to drive a car. In fact, all one needs is a car key, and the know how, provided the car is legally ones.

you do not get the analogy? i doubt . my analogy was based on hierarchical system, you are a car driver who needs a permission from another car driver who in turn will depend on another driver till infinity. so actually you may have the key with the car yet you cannot drive because you still depend on another driver instruction(see it like a driver in a loose bus terminal). i do not want to make the analogy more brain tasking . lets live it this way.

The uncaused causer is not an axiom. It is an hypothesis at best and has not been proven to be true or valid in anyway whatsoever!

what we can see tells us that phenomena are at some point causeless. Things happen for absolutely no reason (at least sub-atomically), and that filters up over time.

And please, the topic being discussed is difficult in its own right. Don't further complicate things by not being clear in your writing or you will open yourself to be misunderstood.

can you be more clear at this point. do you mean you cannot grasp my drift? am ready to make it clearer

Martinez19:
if you say infinite regression is impossible, it means there must be an uncaused cause that either came out of nothing or has been since the beginning. What if I tell you that the universe is that uncaused cause? After all, you conceived that an uncaused cause can exist.

i find your argument interesting and i said that will also mean you are postulating the universe has his own mind.

nenergy:
How does all these education help our country? So many graduates, professors and professionals, yet we're still under-developed.

Fellow citizens, don't waste your money on higher education. Use the time and money to build value, then society will give you honorary PhD

It is because Nigeria is yet to offer a structural or organized system where the thesis writing by the PHD and master holder can be implement. we have lot of fantastic research rotting in our university shelf that can simply shape the future of this country positively, country such as Germany continue to developed through most of the researched that are outsourced from Fraunhofer, Max-Planck, Leibniz, etc. and likewise many advanced country, Nigeria we begin to develop if we set up a body that will analysed and implement these researched literature instead of using it to decorate university shelf .

Martinez19:
But Mr butterfly said everything has a cause. If so yahweh must have a cause. If infinite regression is impossible and we say our universe is the beginning of that a finite regression, what problem would you have with that?

that means you are postulating the universe has a mind of his own?

budaatum:
An infinite regression is most certainly possible regardless of whether one eventually drives or not! Mathematically, think of a number and subtract one from it, then subtract one from your answer and keep going. Do tell me when you can go back no further!

Mathematics is not a tangible thing, but actually an abstract concept and abstraction are always problematic. infinity mathematically is indeed a flawed concept that leaves paradoxical gaps, or holes in the number line, both in the middle, where zero is not allowed to have a reciprocal, and at the two ends where “infinity” is not a valid number''. likewise.Mathematics itself is built on the foundations of axioms implemented a long time ago.( we deal with this phenomenon before) Those axioms were made from humans and the concept of infinity can be played around with by human even if it is true or false.The question i throw up is a tangible one and i will like you to treat it as such. i currently have this book on my table, i will recommend it to you too.‘Infinitesimals: ''The History of a Dangerous Idea’' by Amir Alexander. it elucidate more on the concept of infinity in mathematics. but before then can you go ahead and settle my tangible question?

Martinez19:
I did refute the first one and someone else refuted the second. I would create a topic very soon because of this topic.

ok , i will be waiting

budaatum:
Based on the above alone, and concentrating specifically on the word "every", as used by yourself, it is not possible for there to be one single god since every godx would have to be an effect with a cause, godx-1, in its own right. Essentially, every effective godx would have a causitry godx-1.

Please state how you deal with the infinite regression, godx-1.

i think we already settle this matter, infinite regression is philosophically and scientifically impossible. for example, imagine yourself to be a car driver ready to start a car, but before you start you have to ask permission from another driver behind you, but he has to do the same, and it goes on for infinity. Will you ever drive? If you do drive please explain how?

will any atheist scientifically debunked the argument? i am here to learn

CodeTemplar:
Is PHD 6 years minimum?

Depending on the country, in the UK, it takes three years minimum and five years maximum, the same apply to some European countries. with some few exception, Germany for instance can be from 4 to 6 years depending on the research field . humanities is shorter than science related field . My German prof finish both his master and PHD within 4 years . though he is brilliant. am sure NIGERIA will be around 6 years to maximum and 4 years to minimum.

Cutehector:
PhD in business administration? Really? When Nigeria's problem is fixated on IT and agriculture.. Please..

She did administration, she eventually cover IT. and nonetheless she can be a good FARM manager even with BA while her PHD will make her an authority in any management related discipline which is very vital to the sustenance of agricultural product.. i will advise her to top it with a professional qualification in management . i envy her so much. more grease to her elbow .

HigherEd:
University Of Ghana - Ghana

Student Population - 38,000
Staff Population - N/A
Established in 1948

it is called balme library . the most beautiful university library in west Africa. so proud of you.....

Cromcruach91:
And we still need N3trillion to make sure fees stay low annually.

Just let that sink in.Our budget is N8trillion.

Yes, corruption needs to go, waste needs to go...but beyond that we need 3 trillion every year. to keep fees low.

That is where the problem is. Combatting waste will just make things slightly better, but it won't solve the main problem.

GOVERNMENT will not only add more fund to the government pulse but it will also go a long way to raise more funds to finance our budget. at least increase the mere 8 percent expenditure on education sector which is far below the required amount set by UNESCO at 26 percent. '' we cannot direct the wind, but we can adjust the sail'' president Thomas s Monson.

Cromcruach91:
1.It is ok to talk about rights....when you have the money to fund such rights.

2.According to ASUU/FG agreement, it costs N300000 to train one student in a Nigerian university as at 2009. This was factored into the N3 trillion that was promised in the same agreement...which GEJ told ASUU was not possible in 2013...

3.Sokoto can afford to declare education free because it does not have that many students in university to fund. Once the population of students increases, states become very selective in how many students they fund.

4.And yes...Okorocha is offering free education. How much is he offering to spend in upgrading the state institutions to standards equal to that seen in US, or Europe ? (Zero).

The cold reality is that unless you can find N3trillion per annum from the budget and spend it on universites sans corruption...fees have to go up....or we keep on taking loans.

Education is a human right and not a privilege. when you monetized it, it becomes privileged. A human right is a right that is given to anyone, no matter their personality, gender,ethnicity , color, religion, language and so on. A human right can’t be given or taken away from anyone. ''Human rights are the foundation for freedom, justice and peace in any given society''. A nations like ours is still staggering in most of the facet of life because we have less educated society.

Nigeria government expense is one of the most wasteful in the world, ex governor peter obi gave a speech as of 2016 on how state government incur wasteful expenditure(things that are not viable)The total amount came to a remarkable N1.3 trillion in one year. and likewise Alhaji Lai Mohammed, said the cash recoveries made between May 29, 2015, and May 25, 2016, including recoveries under interim forfeiture (cash and assets), amounted to over N3. 4 trillion. However, Nigerians are yet to see the effect of these funds. If these monies are truly within the coffers of the government, then these funds should be deployed towards developing the country. this same lai also said that $9 billion is been held by the governments in frozen accounts. where are these money? you should note my information is two years old , apart from the money recover in 2017.

At least we all can see the benefit of free education in imo state . imo is doing well as compare to other state in education sector. if sokoto plans ahead , the policy will continue. sokoto state can initiate a tracking system where the graduate of the benefit of the free education policy can reimbursed back into the state pulse. my opinion though. my current university have something of such to keep her scholarship program intact. the former beneficial of the scholarship program are still the one funding the current scholarship.

HigherEd:
I understand that 25,000 naira per term as school fees is grossly inadequate to run a university - I mean it is completely nothing sef. N25,000 is just $100 which is just about the cost of application to a foreign university. But we must be careful of creating a situation where only the rich or middle-class can gain access to quality education. Maybe we should leave the attainment of world class status to private universities who can afford to raise fees and get massive endowments from their proprietors.

However what I won't accept is Nigerians coming again to balme any state govt for poor quality of university education when such school collects less than 100,000/session. Let us accept our fate - Nigerian public universities may never be great if they continue to take such low fees.

Another angle is this, States should not be investing solely in university education. They should adopt private universities like the US fed govt does. And pay for their indigenes per person than run a full university for free, which is.

education - is a fundamental right... and in today's highly technological society - citizens need to be educated. so the stands of increasing school fees will diminish the idea of a sophisticated society and increase inequality to a large extent. government should cut cost on most of her nonviable project(her big cabinet for instance) for now and sacrifice that large chunk of her wealth on education if she want a progressive nation . education is an investment which yield fantastic reward . the higher the government school fees, the lesser the enrollment of brilliant student (especially those from less privilege home). i do not buy the idea of leaving out first class standard to private universities only, however i encourage her to support government mission to ensure education is both affordable and accessible . variety of educational opportunities brings competitiveness but with very robust and adaptable system.

The standard of a quality public universities should not be determined by public pulse rather it should be taken as the basic right of a country aspiring to be prosperous. A semi developed country like ours is in a very disadvantage stage and therefore needs robust education to cover the gap she is missing, if Kuwait and Qatar can avoid free basic education to PHD LEVEL without taxing their citizens, what is stopping us. we are both oil producing state. well, you may want to argue they have less population? you should also note that we have a bigger GDP.

In my own opinion, education should be Free or cost very less except for private universities which shouild also offer a very Fair market value.
I believe it is in the interest of every facet of society; economic, cultural, corporate, military, government, and what all else to ensure that the next generation is smarter than the last.

Expensive tuition fees will not do us any good.it will rather create a mess

i remember when Governor okorocha announced that the state is offering free tuition to every indigine of imo state who will enroll in the state institution and as well as scholarship for brilliant mind. it was a thing of joy to me and this as someway push imo state in education sector above many many states in Nigeria .

AnonyNymous:
Though I'm privileged enough to attend a private university, you're right, tbh. In the United States a single student pays thousands to go to school! For example, $28,000+ per year to the University of California, Berkeley! Some pay much more than that. And we wonder why our universities are nowhere near the top when compared with the rest of the world. Universities need funding. Its also a reason why about 70% of their adult population, according to Senator Rick Santorum (in the 2015**) aren't University educated.

But then again, I don't know if I can say all these apply to Nigeria because the average income is well below the poverty line. So should we say University education is only for the rich? (Dollar to Naira, most 'rich' working class Nigerians are in the middle class abroad).

In all honesty, education in the USA is dammn expensive to her citizens. what is the purpose of paying up to 20 to 30 thousand dollars just for a degree that can still be gotten for free in country that offer similarity such as Germany. To me America got it wrong in education sector . the money that should be spent on education is channel toward military. i DO NOT THINK SUCH A COUNTRY IS INTERESTED IN EDUCATING HER CITIZENS, SHE IS SO MUCH CONCERN ABOUT LOOTING THEM.

Take for instance, Germany spends about $ 49 bn on defence. The US spends $ 640 bn on defence, which is 13 times as much, although it only has four times the population. Total spending on higher education in Germany is about $ 37 bn. If the US spent only four times as much on defence as Germany (about $ 200 bn), the money it would have left over ($ 440 bn) would pay for all German higher education 12 times over.

ogyunging:
@ Vaxx

Hmm....

First off, what does Obatala look like? Can i trust what pic i get off google? How do i know its not like the fake or purported Jesus portrayed by the church.. Feel me?
Aint yoruba btw... How am i sure other entities won't get in when i am vulnerable.. Just being careful with the etheric realm..

There is no consensus image of any orisha and this does not exclude obatala, what are normally presented are the symbolical presentation of their image. in the case of obatala, his symbolical image are white cloth, white lace, white beads and cowries, white flowers, silver coins, white dove and silver jewelry. you can even cave an image of him base on knowledge you have about him.((ensure the image adequately symbolize three things such as peace, holiness and justice. He is honored with white hens, snails, white melon soup, pounded yams, and other white food such as eko. the fermented corn wrapped in plantain leaves known as agidi in igbo languuage .

budaatum:
Ignore that, "remove bible" crap, danvon. No one can limit a discussion on a topic on such a basis.

Vaxx, you might as well have asked that people only use the right hand side of their brain!

lol