Subjectivity and Objectivity : Claims to Knowledge: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » Subjectivity and Objectivity : Claims to Knowledge » Subjectivity and Objectivity : Claims to Knowledge

Subjectivity and Objectivity : Claims to Knowledge
Understanding the real knowledge problem

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Subjectivity and Objectivity : Claims to Knowledge

reincarnated
the moving finger writes

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: on the road to Samarkand

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 2129

Posted 10/14/09 - 06:45 AM: Subject: Subjectivity and Objectivity : Claims to Knowledge	#1
Claims to Knowledge If we define knowledge as Justified True Belief (JTB), then the three necessary and (jointly) sufficient conditions of knowledge which must be satisfied are: 1) X must be true (the T condition) 2) I must believe that X (The B condition) 3) My belief that X must be justified (the J condition) “I claim that I know that X” is another way of saying “I believe that I know that X”. It follows that if I claim to “know that X” then I believe that all three conditions for my knowledge that X are satisfied. In other words “I claim that I know that X” implies “I believe that (X; and I believe that X; and my belief that X is justified)” which simplifies to “I believe that X, and I also believe that my belief that X is justified”. Subjectivity and Objectivity Subjectivity refers to an individual’s perspective, opinion, feelings, beliefs, or desires. A proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are "mind-independent" - that is, not purely the result of judgments based on an individual’s perspective, opinion, feelings, beliefs or desires. A statement (about the world) is thus deemed subjective if it is the result of an individual or group opinion, and it has no independent truth-value outside of that individual or group opinion. If some statement (about the world) is deemed true independently of any individual or group opinion then we say it is an objective statement. “That girl is pretty” is therefore a subjective statement by virtue of the fact that it expresses an opinion or belief (based on individual values, feelings, perspective), but it has no truth-value outside of such opinion or belief. Any individual belief (about the world) is therefore subjective. If I claim “I believe that X” this statement is the result of my individual opinion about X, but it has no truth-value outside of my opinion. The statement “I believe that X” has no objective truth-value which is independent of my individual opinion about X. The Subjectivity of Knowledge Claims We have seen that a claim to knowledge is essentially a belief (about the world). We have also seen that all beliefs are subjective. It follows that all claims to knowledge are therefore subjective. When I claim “I know that X”, what I am actually saying is “I believe that X and I also believe that my belief that X is justified”, which is a purely subjective statement concerning my personal view of the world. Assessing the Truth of Knowledge Claims I may claim that I know that X, but is it true that I know that X? Again, according to JTB, three conditions must be jointly satisfied: 1) X must be true (the T condition) 2) I must believe that X (The B condition) 3) My belief that X must be justified (the J condition) Clearly there is no problem with establishing the truth of (2). If I claim to know that X then it follows that I must believe that X. But what about the truth of (1) and (3)? It does not follow from “my belief that X” that X is true. I may believe that X, but X nevertheless may be false. Clearly there needs to be some independent verification of the truth of X. Similarly, it does not follow from my belief that “my belief that X is justified” that my belief that X IS indeed justified. Clearly there also needs to be some independent verification of the truth of “my belief that X is justified”. What form could this independent verification take? It could be based another subjective perspective - we could ask another individual or group of individuals to judge the truth of these statements. But if we do this we still end up with subjective (or at best inter-subjective) claims to knowledge - possibly differing or competing claims to knowledge yes, but still subjective claims to knowledge. We do NOT end up with an objective assessment of knowledge by simply replacing one subjective claim with another. The ONLY way to arrive at an objective verification of a knowledge claim is to take a “God’s-eye view” which accesses the objective truth (or falsity) of the claim. The problem is - how do we achieve this?
crumpled bits of paper, filled with imperfect thoughts... we all talk a different language, talking in defence... and if you don't give up, and don't give in, you may just be ok... (Mike & The Mechanics, "The Living Years")

Hanover
The Highest Rank Possible

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 30, 2008
Location: Atlanta

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 919

Posted 10/14/09 - 07:06 AM:	#2
The conversation vaguely reminds me of another I had somewhere else. Here's what I was bringing up before, and I still have some concerns about it. When you say that the "girl is pretty" is a subjective statement, that is very different from saying that you are not certain whether the girl is pretty. To say that something is subjective means that the subject is God when it comes to the truth value of the statement. There is no form of objective "prettiness" that can be attained, nor is there a universal concept of what is pretty. For me to say, "the rock is before me," is not a subjective statement. It references an actual objective form being in existence. I am not God when it comes to that declaration, which means that I may be wrong. "The rock is before me" has a truth value. "The girl is pretty" does not. Therefore, I do not agree with the terminology used here when you say that my belief in the rock is subjective. I would say that my belief lacks certainty, meaning I may be wrong. My statement that "the girl is pretty" is certain, meaning it is infallible. To say the existence of the rock is relative would suggest that it exists for me, but not for you, and that neither of us are wrong. I do not believe there is an answer to your ultimate question, which is how can we know whether something is objectively verifiable. I think the answer lies in forming foundational beliefs (fundamental worldview premises), which posit that reason and observation in fact lead to a discovery of the Truth. There is a pragmatic basis for holding to such foundational beliefs, namely that there is no good evidence to question it, and secondly, it doesn't amount to a hill of beans if you do question it as you'll go about your life in the exact same way in any event.
"Nothing is impossible for the man who will not listen to reason." John Belushi, "Animal House" "I have opinions of my own --strong opinions-- but I don't always agree with them." G.W. Bush

180 Proof
kynic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Location: NOTHINGlifeNOTHING

Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 5126

Posted 10/14/09 - 07:44 AM:	#3
reincarnated wrote: The ONLY way to arrive at an objective verification of a knowledge claim is to take a “God’s-eye view” which accesses the objective truth (or falsity) of the claim. The problem is - how do we achieve this? Become god. If, however, that can't be managed, learn to live with the inescapable fallibility of knowledge claims. Performatively consistent claims that are coherent with a background network of other consistent claims are perhaps the best one can do or hope for; public, repeatable / communicable, revisable, conditional -- certainly more than subjective. From a pragmaticist perspective, I think of 'objective' as pertaining to claims about, or procedures for forming rule-bound abstractions (i.e. concepts, predicates) of, objects (which include states-of-affairs, processes, events & things). Haack's foundherentism might be of interest (unless already considered and found wanting).
The question isn't "Which explanations do I believe?" but rather "Which explanations do I least disbelieve?" Absence of evidence THAT MUST BE THERE (i.e. implied by any claim, concept, or (its) predicates, that affects changes in/to the world) entails evidence of absence. [What cannot be done?[What cannot be hoped?[What cannot be known?]]]

reincarnated
the moving finger writes

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: on the road to Samarkand

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 2129

Posted 10/14/09 - 10:42 PM:	#4
180 Proof wrote: Become god. Any good training courses or self-help books you can recommend? 180 Proof wrote: If, however, that can't be managed, learn to live with the inescapable fallibility of knowledge claims. Performatively consistent claims that are coherent with a background network of other consistent claims are perhaps the best one can do or hope for; public, repeatable / communicable, revisable, conditional -- certainly more than subjective. Inescapable fallibity, yes. Coherentist approach to truth - I agree. More than subjective? In the sense that they are inter-subjective, yes. 180 Proof wrote: Haack's foundherentism might be of interest (unless already considered and found wanting). I'll check it out, thanks
crumpled bits of paper, filled with imperfect thoughts... we all talk a different language, talking in defence... and if you don't give up, and don't give in, you may just be ok... (Mike & The Mechanics, "The Living Years")

reincarnated
the moving finger writes

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: on the road to Samarkand

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 2129

Posted 10/14/09 - 10:57 PM:	#5
Hanover wrote: For me to say, "the rock is before me," is not a subjective statement. But for you to say "I believe that the rock is before me" is a subjective statement, since it describes your personal belief (which is determined by your perspective, preferences, opinions etc). Hanover wrote: It references an actual objective form being in existence. I am not God when it comes to that declaration, which means that I may be wrong. "The rock is before me" has a truth value. "The girl is pretty" does not. "The girl is pretty" has a subjective but not an objective truth value - the statement may be deemed true by some individuals but not true by others. The same is true of the statement "I believe the rock is before me". Hanover wrote: Therefore, I do not agree with the terminology used here when you say that my belief in the rock is subjective. I would say that my belief lacks certainty, meaning I may be wrong. The subject of your belief (ie "the rock is before me") may be objectively false, but it is not the case that the statement "I believe the rock is before me" could be false - this is a subjectively true statement. Hanover wrote: To say the existence of the rock is relative would suggest that it exists for me, but not for you, and that neither of us are wrong. I am not suggesting that the statement "the rock is before me" is subjectively (but not objectively) true/false, this is a straw man. Quite the opposite - if you read the OP I am clearly saying that reincarnated wrote: It does not follow from “my belief that X” that X is true. I may believe that X, but X nevertheless may be false. Clearly there needs to be some independent verification of the truth of X. Hanover wrote: I do not believe there is an answer to your ultimate question, which is how can we know whether something is objectively verifiable. I think the answer lies in forming foundational beliefs (fundamental worldview premises), which posit that reason and observation in fact lead to a discovery of the Truth. There is a pragmatic basis for holding to such foundational beliefs, namely that there is no good evidence to question it, and secondly, it doesn't amount to a hill of beans if you do question it as you'll go about your life in the exact same way in any event. Do we agree, then, that we have no access to infallible knowledge, since we do not have the God's-eye view that such knowledge requires?
crumpled bits of paper, filled with imperfect thoughts... we all talk a different language, talking in defence... and if you don't give up, and don't give in, you may just be ok... (Mike & The Mechanics, "The Living Years")

Hanover
The Highest Rank Possible

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 30, 2008
Location: Atlanta

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 919

Posted 10/15/09 - 05:52 AM:	#6
Reincarnated, I still maintain a distinction between the statements "the girl is pretty" and "I believe the rock is before me." One is nessarily subjective, yet the other may comport with objective reality. For example, the words "I believe" do not modify the statement "the girl is pretty." The statement "the girl is pretty" is indistinct from the statement "I believe the girl is pretty," while the statement "the rock is before me" is distinct from the statement "I believe the rock is before me." The point being that the rock statement may refererence external reality while the girl statement necessarily does not. I would even say that the statement "I believe there is a rock" has a truth value. Either you (1) believe it, or (2) you don't. While I must trust your sincerity to determine whether you hold that belief (or maybe I can find the "belief center" of your brain and figure it out myself), that still doesn't change the objective truth of whether you believe it or not. However, "the girl is pretty" has no truth value ever. There is no objective truth to tap into. Interestingly, "I believe the girl is pretty" references an objective event, namely your belief, and its truth depends upon what you actually believe. But, I will say that a belief, purely on its own, is subjective because one cannot believe he is believing but actually not be believing. At any rate, if you must qualify your every statement with "I believe," then how is that not solipsism? Do we agree, then, that we have no access to infallible knowledge, since we do not have the God's-eye view that such knowledge requires? I'm not even sure that God has God's eye view the way the question has been presented. That is, it seems that God's eye view is undefinable. However, if we define objective reality (God's eye view) as that which is presented to our senses and understood by our brain, then, sure, we have God's eye view. If your next question is "how can we know that our senses and reasons lead to the objective knowledge," then you've asked a logically unanswerable question that requires circularity because my only answer must be "because my senses and reason have led me to that conclusion." Edited by Hanover on 10/15/09 - 06:06 AM
"Nothing is impossible for the man who will not listen to reason." John Belushi, "Animal House" "I have opinions of my own --strong opinions-- but I don't always agree with them." G.W. Bush

To Mega Therion
Grand Moff

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 11, 2009

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 181

Posted 10/15/09 - 09:35 AM:	#7
I would say that the difference between the two statements is that the first, which we all agree should be called subjective ('The girl is pretty.'), refers to an internal mental state, and the second ('The rock is before me.') refers to an external object. All in all, though, I don't think the distinction is all that important, really. Both kinds of statements are necessary in a complete description of the world (unless one subscribes to a kind of eliminativism, I guess), and both are equally falible. And qualifying every statement with 'I believe' does not mean one is a solipsist, only that one has logorrhoea. After all, if every statement expresses a belief of ours (and it does), appending 'I believe' to it gives us no new information. So, I'm not exactly sure why reincarnated insists on it. All in all, I'm with 180 Proof on this one, though I would say that the fact that our most probable claims.allow us to interact with our enviroment sucessfully is more important than the fact that they're consistent. After all, the criteria of consistency are also (falible) statements.

Hanover
The Highest Rank Possible

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 30, 2008
Location: Atlanta

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 919

Posted 10/15/09 - 11:32 AM:	#8
To Mega Therion wrote: I would say that the difference between the two statements is that the first, which we all agree should be called subjective ('The girl is pretty.'), refers to an internal mental state, and the second ('The rock is before me.') refers to an external object. All in all, though, I don't think the distinction is all that important, really. This isn't really a discussion about consciousness. It's an epistomological debate. A subjective truth has no truth value outside the person declaring it. If I say, "the girl is pretty," and sincerly beleive it, then the girl is pretty. She may be ugly to you, which means that she is both consistently pretty and ugly at the same time. Her prettiness has no objective existence. To say "a rock is before me" is not a subjective truth. If you say there is a rock and I say there's not, one of us is wrong. To say otherwise would hold that rocks are nothing but figments of our imagination.
"Nothing is impossible for the man who will not listen to reason." John Belushi, "Animal House" "I have opinions of my own --strong opinions-- but I don't always agree with them." G.W. Bush

To Mega Therion
Grand Moff

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 11, 2009

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 181

Posted 10/15/09 - 11:54 AM:	#9
Hanover wrote: This isn't really a discussion about consciousness. It's an epistomological debate. A subjective truth has no truth value outside the person declaring it. If I say, "the girl is pretty," and sincerly beleive it, then the girl is pretty. She may be ugly to you, which means that she is both consistently pretty and ugly at the same time. Her prettiness has no objective existence. To say "a rock is before me" is not a subjective truth. If you say there is a rock and I say there's not, one of us is wrong. To say otherwise would hold that rocks are nothing but figments of our imagination. I don't think epistemological debates can be conducted without referring to ontology here and there. But you pretty much said the same thing as me: 'The girl is pretty.' is a statement about what happens in our consciousness, and so is accurate if and only if I find the girl pretty; 'There is a rock in front of me.' refers to something external to us and so its truth doesn't depend on our thought processes. But it is odd to say that the girl is both pretty and ugly; in any case 'The girl is pretty.' means two different things when said by two different people.

brainpharte
Huh?

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 07, 2009

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 968

Posted 10/15/09 - 12:24 PM:	#10
Hello All, Seems to me that the main way that we differentiate subjective vs objective statements resides in the clarity or ambiguity of the predicates. There is general agreement about what counts as a "rock before me" but widely varying opinion about what counts as "pretty". If the claim were "the girl is 5ft 4in tall" there would be agreement--because the meaning of 5ft 4in is unambiguous. Seems to me that the predicates that result in "subjective opinions" are simply predicates that are vague, ambiguous, unspecific, whereas claims that count as "objective facts" are attributions of predicates about which there is relatively little ambiguity.
"I don't see much sense in that," said Rabbit. "No," said Pooh humbly, "there isn't. But there was going to be when I began it. It's just that something happened to it along the way."

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.