Postmodernism has a lot to answer for

Just a quick pivotal question for this discussion:

What is objective truth?

Truth (which is objective truth) is correspondence to fact--it is correspondence to what really is so.

There are facts, like Jupiter's being the largest planet in the Solar system and two plus two's equaling four and tigers' being striped. There are states of affairs, which are either facts or "wannabe facts" and which either obtain (if they are facts) or do not obtain (if they are "wannabe facts"). Thus, Jupiter's being the largest planet in the Solar system is a state of affairs that obtains, and is therefore a fact; Saturn's being the largest planet in the Solar system is a state of affairs that does not obtain, and is not a fact. Two plus two's equaling four is a state of affairs that obtains, and is a fact; two plus two's equaling five is a state of affairs that does not obtain, and is not a fact.

Sentences are used to express all sorts of things, but some sentences are used to assert the obtaining (or non-obtaining) of states of affairs. In order to say anything at all, a sentence has to be interpreted, of course. But many sentences have reasonable, ordinary, natural interpretations. We know how to interpret "Jupiter is the largest planet in the Solar system." Sentences which are interpreted as asserting the obtaining of states of affairs are said to express propositions. A true proposition is one corresponding to a state of affairs that obtains--a fact; a false proposition is one corresponding to a state of affairs that doesn't obtain--a "wannabe fact." For simplicity, we generally assume that everybody understands the meaning of a sentence, and we may then simply say that the sentence, instead of the proposition, is true or false.

True propositions are true regardless of whether anybody thinks or believes or hopes or doubts that they are (unless the proposition is itself about what person S thinks or believes or hopes or doubts, in which case what person S thinks or believes or hopes or doubts determines the truth-value of the proposition). The couch in the living room is there even when you go to sleep in another room, so the sentence "The couch is in the living room" is said to be true (objectively true). Whatever there's a fact about, the proposition corresponding to that fact is true, and the proposition corresponding to the complement of that fact (i.e., the state of affairs' not actually obtaining) is false.

I will point out that sometimes further interpretation really is necessary before we can determine whether a sentences expresses a true proposition or a false one. "Neptune is the fourth-largest planet in the Solar system" requires further interpretation, because "Neptune is the fourth-largest planet in the Solar system by diameter" is true but "Neptune is the fourth-largest planet in the Solar system by mass" is false (it's third-largest by mass).

As long as you accept that there are facts, you also accept that there are truths.

There could be a solar system in an alternate universe where Jupiter is not the largest planet- so even that could be false if you're talking about another universe.

That would be a matter of interpretation, about which I didn't say much because I didn't want it to get in the way of what I was explaining.

Any word or sentence may be interpreted any way you like. You may interpret "tiger" to mean what we would normally mean by "ballerina," if you so choose. Words and sentences do not have objectively given meanings. But we do use words and sentences to communicate, and we do have intersubjective standards of use for words and sentences (both for meaning and for syntax). No sentence is true or false independent of the interpretation assigned to it. We must always remember that a sentence like "Jupiter is the largest planet in the Solar system" is meaningless--and therefore neither true nor false--until a meaning is assigned to it, and that it is only true or false once a meaning on which it asserts the obtaining of a state of affairs is assigned to it.

But there's a natural interpretation, for any proficient user of English, to be given to a sentence like "Jupiter is the largest planet in the Solar system," and *given that interpretation*, the sentence is true. What's really true or false is not the sentence but the sentence under a particular interpretation on which it asserts the obtaining of a state of affairs. We shorten this by saying that what is true or false is the proposition it is taken to express.

On the natural interpretation, Jupiter is not a planet in some faraway galaxy or in some alternate universe but is the largest planet in our Solar system, which makes the proposition expressed by the sentence "Jupiter is the largest planet in the Solar system" under the natural interpretation true. If you change the interpretation of the sentence so as to change the referent of the word "Jupiter," then you might very well change the truth-value of the sentence or even render it truth-value-less. It's crucial, when discussing the truth or falsity of a sentence, to keep its interpretation fixed. Otherwise, one engages in the fallacy of equivocation.

We do often leave some of our meaning implicit. "Barack Obama is president of the United States." When? In 2003? Well, no, we mean now, in 2015. The Barack Obama who drives a truck in Toronto? Well, no, we mean the Barack Obama who ran against Hillary Clinton and who now resides in the White House. And so on. But as long as we all understand the intended meaning, it doesn't matter if we leave it implicit.

The sentence "Jupiter is the largest planet in the Solar system" is true under the natural interpretation, on which Jupiter is a planet in our Solar system and has the Great Red Spot and so on; the sentence "Jupiter is the largest planet in the Solar system" is false under the interpretation "Tigers are polka-dotted" (or under the interpretation "In an alternate universe in which Saturn is twice the size of Jupiter, Jupiter is the largest planet in the Solar system"). This is why we usually assign truth-values to propositions--the meanings of sentences asserting the obtaining of states of affairs--rather than to sentences. The proposition expressed by the sentence "Jupiter is the largest planet in the Solar system" under its natural interpretation is simply true. The proposition expressed by the sentence under a different interpretation *is a different proposition, even though it's expressed by the same sentence*.

It's the meaning that matters.

To Mindwalk:

While I have never read anything philosophically heavier than the mercifully short Prince by Machiavelli, I think I know where you are coming from. I do believe that the reflexive and encouraged clinging to of one's "own" truths puts one's reasoning at a serious disadvantage. Especially in such a quickly changing world. Add to the fact that a large and uninformed population can do serious harm as far as elected officials and other public programs are concerned and you have ample cause to question the logic of encouraging people to find simple comforting answers to questions of serious importance.

That was the longest, and most educated way, I've ever seen a person's egotistically nonsensical assertion rendered invalid. Kudos, MindWalk, for giving awesomechess1729 a proper education in logic.

I am including this stuff in my book, so I have it pretty well thought out.

That is one book I'd be beyond happy to purchase.

Three points:

1) I agree with you, but how do you know facts? That you have all of them, that you are interpreting them well, that you are receiving them well? How do you create propositions relating to facts without bias?

2) I don't agree with you. You seem to be assuming an objective extrinsic reality of facts. Why? What is the nature of this reality? What is the nature of an observer within it.

3) Considering the epistemological difficulty of being, one must understand the resistence to any sort of dogma, and science is not immune to creating one. Scientific method is a valuable tool, but putting science on a pedestal and giving it moral, cultural and political value is dubious.

***

I feel I need to put a few words on my own personal view as well:

I hold nothing sacred (at least knowingly) when it comes to thinking, and use any method that works, but errare humanum est, and scientists are human as well.

You appear to be extremely confused.

Don't you realize it's impossible to draw conclusions regarding some thing's (or method's) accuracy without referencing a world of facts? In an unknowable world, there is no such thing as bias, since all that would exist is perception.

Don't you see that something has to exist? That something has to be real in order for you to argue that anybody else's methods might have objective drawbacks? And those things have functionings.

You can't simultaneously argue for a non-objective reality AND question the objectivity of a certain approach of thinking. It only proves that you really do believe in an objective reality.

I am confused as to the subject of this thread.

I don't think it's about questioning science itself, at least that's not what I'm trying to do, it's about questioning its importance. Science is inevitably important in terms of economical, military progress, that of quality of life as usually measured. But what about personal level, how imortant is science in my everyday decision making, in my happiness, my world constructing?

There is enough of what we don't know and enough of what we just think we know that a hypotetical postmodernist can diminish the importance and perhaps even relevance, science has for them.

Well, he can try, if he's willing to ignore all the science that sends a man to the Moon (and soon to Mars), and if he's willing to ignore all the science that gets his mother Lasik surgery for her failing eyes, and if he's willing to ignore all the science that gets him his Internet connection and Web sites, and if he's willing to ignore all the science that gets his children their vaccinations against measles and diphtheria and so on.

And he can try, if he's willing to ignore all the science that lets him listen to songs on YouTube or view paintings online or watch cable TV. He can try, if he's willing to leave himself ignorant of the wonders of the universe and of how life works.

Just because he doesn't see scientists in his everyday life doesn't mean that science has no importance in his life. It just means it's easy for him to ignore it. Or, worse still, to deny it.

Even in love, we have enough knowledge about how love works that your hypothetical postmodernist shouldn't think of love as magic. He shouldn't think of it as something that hits you or doesn't. We have some understanding of what makes relationships last, so your hypothetical postmodernist should probably look at what we know and try to treat relationships in ways that will make them last instead of not last--unless he *wants* them to end.

Does he want children? Are he and his wife unable to conceive? Guess who wants science!

People can ignore science in their building of worldviews only by being ignorant of science and its effects in their lives. But sure, people can be ignorant of science and its effects in their lives. Many people are. But there is no virtue in that. It should hardly be a philosophical school. There's a Dilbert cartoon: "When did ignorance become a point of view?"

If nothing compels you to *consciously think about science* in your daily life--well, OK. So? That doesn't mean that the unimportance of science is somehow a viable philosophical view. It just means you're able to ignore it, consciously, most of the time.

Lol, it's hard for anybody remotely educated not to takt this line of thought as a joke. Scienece creates your everyday decision making. Without science, your everyday decision making would consist of "Do I hunt an animal or clean myself off at the pond?".

You wouldn't have happiness to pursue or a "world to construct" without the progresses of science both solving immediate life-and-death concerns AND creating a society in which you can concern yourself with these things. Don't you see that if you're starving and unsafe, you can only worry about your survival? Not your existential happiness?

I suspect what he has in mind is that he can spend most of his waking hours thinking about late twentieth-century poetry, if he wants to. He can go to the supermarket (and ignore where the refrigeration came from to keep foods cold) and wash laundry (and ignore where the washer/dryer came from) and eat a genteel dinner (and ignore where the electrical system in his house came from) and just not *think about* science. And that's true: one can simply *not think about* science all he wants to. He doesn't have to spend any time at all thinking about the second law of thermodynamics (unless he wants to know what to say to an evolution-denier at a party) or thinking about quantum physics (unless he wants to actually understand when the term "the uncertainty principle" is and is not being used correctly) or thinking about Einsteinian physics (unless he wants to actually understand when the term "everything's relative" is and is not being used correctly--with "not" being most of the time). He can just ignore science, taking its fruits for granted, most of the time--and focus on late twentieth-century poetry.

And no harm comes of it unless he then latches onto postmodernism and starts denying that there is any such thing as objective truth or that science is any better a way of getting at what's true and what isn't than, say, astrology.

I acknowledged that in the sentence preceding the one you marked, don't play smart.

If postmodernist is an idiot that chooses to ignore stuff arbitrarily to suit his fantasy than you are right MindWalk.

But, I have a different person in mind. Maybe that's not your postmodernist, maybe we can call it a sceptic.

Firstly it's a person with no claim on universality. His philosophy is applicable only to him, and he doesn't care if it's applicable to any other human being.

Secondly, he aims to find things that make sense. In terms of science, that means he'll use that refrigirator because it keeps his food fresh, he'll accept the law of gravity if he can use it to accuratly determine how to hit his neighbours cat. But he will also take the newest finding on brain funcionality with a grain of salt, because from his experience that doesn't quite work like that, and he can afford to do that, until more is known on the subject. He might also find that astrology is incredibly accurate in his hands and can use it to great effect. Perhaps he thinks the world is indeed just a computer program like in Matrix, and finds that incredibly relevant to his everyday life.

It's a man that doesn't ignore the bullet science created that killed him, but a man who whishes he had just a little more time to meditate, because he would then be able to stop that bullet with his mind.

That is not a man that is against science and doesn't wish to denounce it, but is also walking on the fringes of science and even beyond where that is applicable.

Finally the circle is complete... this thread started on comments related to The Matrix (1999, or 2199, depending on whether you believe it was real), and has again landed on that topic.

I would like to add that believing we are in a virtual world does not necessarily involve denying scientific principles. In fact, there are many scientific theories proposing this (e.g. the Holographic Principle). I'm interested in the works of George Berkeley simply because they involve our world being virtual (e.g. the only true perception is information immediately received by the senses), even though I disagree with the way Berkeley adamantly attacked science and promoted religion.

Berkeley wrote clearly and carefully, almost entirely.

Unfortunately, his subjective idealism rests on two simple errors.

First, he equivocates on the meaning of "sensible thing." He uses it to denote the mental image of a tiger--but he also uses it to denote the actual tiger (well, the purportedly actual tiger). A mental image can only be experienced by an experiencer, and a sensory mental image by a perceiver; but the actual tiger isn't like that. He uses the same term to refer to two different sorts of thing and renders his argument toothless.

Second, he thinks that only an idea can be like another idea (so that there can't be an actual tiger that is "like" a person's tigerish mental image). But an idea can only be like another idea *in the respect of being an idea*; it can be like something else in other ways. He would have been aided by a modern understanding of encoding: clearly, a person's tigerish mental image can encode information about an actual tiger.

Those two errors completely vitiate his argument for subjective idealism.

I mentioned Matrix specifically with you in mind awesomechess, and f_babaee_a, knowing the origin of this thread.