I think people can objectively know even without dialect, just through experiments and reproducibility.
Dialect, debate teaching and learning are all important .
But nothing is above truth, and truth is the same for everybody we donāt carry our own truths we just carry our own opinions.
Galileo would have discovered inertia and known it to be true even without telling it to anybody.
I think there is some misinterpretation on the purpose and functionality of science with relation to objectivity and truth. I have to focus on this to help ground my previous comments. I hope that at the end my response also gets at your comments on Galileo's truth in discovery, even if he had kept it to himself. The story "Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions" might also be a good
metaphor for what I'm alluding to.
---
Humans experience subjectively, not objectively. There is no individual (beyond the concept of a god) that may have objective insight into reality.
Reproducibility shows consistency to manifest phenomena -> Predictability or model building is not a reproduction of the phenomena, it is a tangent line approximation to the phenomena.
Reproducibility != objective reality. It is an approximation. We can reproduce to infinity. We can fill out the space of possible measurements to whatever specified __resolution__ we care. We are still subjective beings creating approximate curve fittings to some specified resolution. All sciences must work with tolerances to some specified resolution, be it in measurement or statistical.
The theory of inertia is a human understood and verbalized representation of a phenomena __so far as we have observed it__. The __phenomena__ of inertia may be very consistent with our verbalization of inertia, but that's as far as we can ever be sure of.
Pure logic (and by proxy mathematics) is the closest we can hope to for any Truth, but (1) Those Truths are still subjective to the specific axioms you are working with and (2) It is impossible to use those rules to prove consistency within said system.
Workable truths (aka theories of the natural world - gravity) are communicable to other humans, but still incomplete representations. By communicating, we are able to build and approach better representations of the world by bringing them up to scrutiny. The best team members are also the best rivals.
nostr:npub1ytezax9qxku0l975e3x9kd8xtn8v4cjcgv8wefrtz7c7324m3f0qd7559s just saw your previous thread. Maybe you'd also appreciate this š«š¤
What is consistent is what is true in our world.
It could be statistically consistent, or consistent in its randomness. Arbitrary things are just āmade-upā.
Also you put too much credence to individual subjectivity.
A consistent and non-arbitrary world only works when two individuals can reproduce each others findings.
Iād love to debate on this issue, but only if itās grounded, and we donāt make up abstractions and get lost in them.
Our representations are not reality. Discussions on interpretations go nowhere until they can be proven by experiment.
There is only one reality, which is what we all experience.
Otherwise there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster behind the sun.
Just to put it out, Iām absolutely loving this discussionš
But on one of the points you raised
āAll sciences must work with tolerances to some specified resolution, be it in measurement or statistical.ā
I donāt think this is true either, if a theory is in fact true it should be able to predict occurrences to the utmost amount of scrutiny possible and it should do so reproducibly.
If it fails to do so there is something wrong with it.
If you mean resolution of the measurement devices, then thatās a limitation on the device not the science or theory if the theory is true it must be true for when we have better devices.
Newtonian physics works perfectly well as a theory until you move to quantum or cosmological scales. Nothing wrong with using in the correct scope. Theories will always be correct until they aren't, and then (hopefully) new theories emerge which are able to be applied more generally. Those theories will also be true, until they aren't š
Yes and we should not treat Newtonian gravity as a right theory anymore since we now know by measurement that itās not, and even when we thought it was, it was reproducible at the known scales. Not sure how this is contradicts what I said previously though.
"What is consistent is what is true in __our__ world". We can all agree on the map we use, we can fill it out together, but let us not mistake the map for the territory.
I think were converging on something, but the schizm we've encountered lies in how your definition of "objective truth" is my definition of "workable truth", the accessibility of "The One Reality", and perhaps on the usefulness (or dare I say integral aspect) of intepretation and representation of observation.
We are firmly planted in our labels for this concept, but that's okay. I'm not going to ask you to use my language, but at least I know where the divide is.
The person who sees a flying spaghetti monster behind the sun is no more valid than the scientists that use their special lenses to conclude that there is no spaghetti monster, one just happens to be more useful in the long run.
There's another term that is used when many individuals report consistent experiences. Mass psychogenic illness. The difference however lies in its usefulness.
