Poll: Objectivity?
Poll Options
View poll results: Objectivity?
Yes
25 68%
No
12 32%
Voters: 37.
#4
Yes, it's there among all the lies and bullshit.
I'm rgrockr and I do not approve of this message.
#6
Quote by MakinLattes
no


What about the objective truth that Pokemon really exist?
Quote by denizenz
I'll logic you right in the thyroid.

Art & Lutherie
#8
Because we are ants.
Most of the important things


in the world have been accomplished


by people who have kept on


trying when there seemed to be no hope at all
#10
No, it doesn't exist.
Gear:
MXR Super Badass -->
BOSS SD WAZA -->
FENDER CD 140 SCE -->
MXR M300 REVERB -->
TC ELECTRONIC FLASHBACK
ESP EC 401 VF TSB -->
BOSS KATANA HEAD 100 WATT -->
MILF Tease
#12
Yes, due to logic and physics. The best example I can think of is absolute zero. Temperature is based on the property of motion. A particle is either moving (m) or not moving (~m). All things are either m or ~m. This is an objective truth. The particle is either moving or it isn't moving and there is no way around that. Now, can a particle actually be still? I don't know and don't care and that isn't the point.
Lord Gold feeds from your orifices and he wants to see you sweat.
Lord Gold probes you publicly and makes your pussy wet.
Now say his name.....
#14
Nothing but ants~!
[img]http://i.imgur.com/LYZyCdp.gif[/img]


Quote by CrossBack7
Momie's like not even a real person, just an asian, lesbian spirit.
#15
I believe that there is an objective truth in the pure sense of the word. Since our human minds are able to understand what objectivity means, we can say that an objective truth exists. Everything is subjective to humans. How do you know that when I see blue, you see the same "blue" I'm seeing? Nobody can understand another person, so yes, truths can be subjective to individuals. However, no human can understand the objective truth of the universe. Even if we don't exist, the objective truth would be that we don't exist. If our earth were flat, the objective truth would be that the earth is flat. We would think the objective truth to be that the earth is round, but the objective fact still remains: the earth is flat.
Jackson RR5 ivory w/ EMG 81/85
Jackson DX6 w/ SD Distortion & Dimarzio Super Distortion
Fender Starcaster Sunburst
Mesa/Boogie DC-3
Johnson JT50 Mirage
Ibanez TS-9
Morley Bad Horsie 2
Boss CE-5

ISP Decimator
Boss DD-6
Korg Pitchblack
#16
Quote by lordofthefood1
Yes, due to logic and physics. The best example I can think of is absolute zero. Temperature is based on the property of motion. A particle is either moving (m) or not moving (~m). All things are either m or ~m. This is an objective truth. The particle is either moving or it isn't moving and there is no way around that. Now, can a particle actually be still? I don't know and don't care and that isn't the point.



Movement is relative.
Quote by Zaphod_Beeblebr
Theory is descriptive, not prescriptive.


Quote by MiKe Hendryckz
theory states 1+1=2 sometimes in music 1+1=3.
#17
Dunno. Math? Does that count?

When it comes to physical reality, our senses can err. And I've been told we can't tell with 100% certainty when they do.
Last edited by TheQuailman at Aug 30, 2010,
#18
Sort of. Empirical methods appear to be reliable ways of gaining knowledge, but nobody can be completely certain they're reliable. Can we be mostly certain? Yes. So, I guess objective truth exists in practice.
#20
Quote by Holy Katana
Sort of. Empirical methods appear to be reliable ways of gaining knowledge, but nobody can be completely certain they're reliable. Can we be mostly certain? Yes. So, I guess objective truth exists in practice.


But isn't the whole point of empirical method to find out what the absolute truth is?
#21
Quote by denfilade
But isn't the whole point of empirical method to find out what the absolute truth is?



Ya. We can't know the absolute truth, but we can get pretty close.
Quote by Zaphod_Beeblebr
Theory is descriptive, not prescriptive.


Quote by MiKe Hendryckz
theory states 1+1=2 sometimes in music 1+1=3.
#23
Quote by TimmyPage06
Yes.

For more info, see the laws of physics.

Lol, fail. Scientific method and it's implications, check it out.

EDIT: Actually, this guy puts it nicely:
Quote by The_Sophist
Ya. We can't know the absolute truth, but we can get pretty close.

To be fair though, without knowing absolute truth, we can't know whether we're close to it. All signs are pointing towards us being pretty close, but those signs can deceive us.
Last edited by TheQuailman at Aug 30, 2010,
#24
Quote by TimmyPage06
Yes.

For more info, see the laws of physics.


Eh, not quite, and in this context its quite misleading to describe them as 'laws' when really they are only theories. However I would argue Maths is objective, and even though my senses are fallible I can still make true statements about them, ie; I believe I am perceiving the sense data of a tree.
#25
Quote by TheQuailman
Lol, fail. Scientific method and it's implications, check it out.

EDIT: Actually, this guy puts it nicely:

To be fair though, without knowing absolute truth, we can't know whether we're close to it. All signs are pointing towards us being pretty close, but those signs can deceive us.



They can deceive us, but the empiracal method has given alot of things that work, uncluding the computer I'm using, so it's got to be working a little bit.

I always found this topic really interesting. All my freinds thought things were one colour, and that was it, until I told them I was colourblind and that they were only percieving that it was that colour.
Quote by Zaphod_Beeblebr
Theory is descriptive, not prescriptive.


Quote by MiKe Hendryckz
theory states 1+1=2 sometimes in music 1+1=3.
#26
Some of you guys are thinking too hard. Think of it like this: I am using my computer right now, that is absolute fact.

Or if you'd rather get all philosophical: we do know for a fact that there are many things we don't know right now.

This thread isn't about absolute truth, or ultimate truth or anything; it's about objective truth: can you know something without any kind of prejudice or bias?
I'm rgrockr and I do not approve of this message.
Last edited by rgrockr at Aug 30, 2010,