• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

"Objective" Evidence

You miss every point I make.

You have not addressed anything as usual.

If a person is killed they are not experiencing anything.

And a killed person is an experience for some other person.

All evidence is an experience of some human.

You have yet to make a single point. However, the point you missed on this occasion was that external world does not cater to our beliefs and assumptions, that a fall from a cliff will injure or kill you or anyone else regardless of beliefs, and is therefore objective.

The external world of objects and events being objective.

What do you know about the external world that is not a subjective experience?
Solipsism is such a tired old useless and futile philosophical argument. If you are right then you don't exist, only being an irritating quirk of my own mind. If you are wrong then you have demonstrated that discussion is useless because you don't believe I actually exist.
 
What do you know about the external world that is not a subjective experience?
Solipsism is such a tired old useless and futile philosophical argument. If you are right then you don't exist, only being an irritating quirk of my own mind. If you are wrong then you have demonstrated that discussion is useless because you don't believe I actually exist.

This is called totally avoiding a question.

What do you know about the external world that is not a subjective experience?
 
Yes avoiding that question seems to be a trait you have.

What do you know about the external world that is not a subjective experience?

Can you name one thing? Just one.
 
Isn't "objective evidence" an oxymoron?

Evidence can never support a conclusion to the point that the conclusion can be said to be objectively true because it's always possible that the evidence was wrong, or that evidence leading to a contrary conclusion be found later.

Not that I'm claiming to understand philosophy all that well.
 
Yes avoiding that question seems to be a trait you have.

What do you know about the external world that is not a subjective experience?

Can you name one thing? Just one.

I know that if there wasn't one I wouldn't be able to learn or maintain language. I explained this earlier.

Global scepticism - as shit an idea today as it has always been. If someone seriously wants to study it, that's great. If however all someone wants to do is invoke it to hide behind in an inconsistent 'God Of The Gaps' style evasion then that's just intellectual dishonesty.
 
Isn't "objective evidence" an oxymoron?

Evidence can never support a conclusion to the point that the conclusion can be said to be objectively true because it's always possible that the evidence was wrong, or that evidence leading to a contrary conclusion be found later.

Not that I'm claiming to understand philosophy all that well.

Evidence
A thing or set of things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment

What is said to be "objective" here is the evidence, not the conclusion. The evidence supports the belief that the conclusion is true. It is "objective" if we can agree that it is real.

If you just saw a luciferous demon you'll say that you have evidence that Hell exists but it will be only subjective evidence because you're going to be the only one to have seen this demon.

Obviously, to accept any evidence of A as objective you have to accept first your own subjective evidence of A, and then also your subjective evidence that other people exist to begin with and then that they agree with you about there being evidence of A.

It's not surprising we get easily confused about this issue. :D
EB
 
Yes avoiding that question seems to be a trait you have.

What do you know about the external world that is not a subjective experience?

Can you name one thing? Just one.

I know that if there wasn't one I wouldn't be able to learn or maintain language. I explained this earlier.

That is faith in something external to the mind based on the faith in many many experiences.

Yes, your faith is experienced.

That is all a human has. Their experiences.

There is nothing else.
 
Isn't "objective evidence" an oxymoron?

Without a doubt.

All "evidence" is a subjective experience.

There is no such thing as "objective" evidence.

When two or more people share the same subjective experience we many times say it is "objective" evidence.

"Objective" only meaning a multitude of subjective reports.
 
Isn't "objective evidence" an oxymoron?

Without a doubt.

All "evidence" is a subjective experience.

There is no such thing as "objective" evidence.

When two or more people share the same subjective experience we many times say it is "objective" evidence.

"Objective" only meaning a multitude of subjective reports.

Congratulations. You have achieved Radical Skepticism. As such, there is now no reason for you to post anything further as nothing that is posted can ever be confirmed by you as anything other than your own brain talking to itself.

To continue responding to anything written is to engage in mental masturbation. You have attained the level of insanity.
 
Some one people here doesn't know what "oxymoron" usually means.

So, let's have a reminder of one of many similar definitions:
Oxymoron
a figure of speech that uses seeming contradictions, as “cruel kindness” or “to make haste slowly.”

According to this, "objective evidence" is not an oxymoron. It's a perfectly meaningful expression.

Still, that it isn't an oxymoron doesn't mean that there is any such "objective evidence". Who would know!?

I guess all we can do is agree between sensible people that there is evidence that there are sensible people and therefore that this evidence is objective.

And, personally, I do have subjective evidence that that's exactly what we're doing.

Oh, yes, we can do something else. We can also disagree with one other people who's saying that "objective evidence" is an oxymoron.

And, of course, the only subjective evidence I have is mine. Indeed, the only subjective evidence each of us has is his own.

So, whatever subjective evidence this guy may have, or think he has, just doesn't matter. All we need is to agree between ourselves, between sensible people as to what's objective.

And then we're done here.

Not sooo difficult, really!
EB
 
Isn't "objective evidence" an oxymoron?

Without a doubt.

All "evidence" is a subjective experience.

There is no such thing as "objective" evidence.

When two or more people share the same subjective experience we many times say it is "objective" evidence.

"Objective" only meaning a multitude of subjective reports.

Congratulations. You have achieved Radical Skepticism. As such, there is now no reason for you to post anything further as nothing that is posted can ever be confirmed by you as anything other than your own brain talking to itself.

To continue responding to anything written is to engage in mental masturbation. You have attained the level of insanity.

You being bothered won't change one bit of it.

The only thing you have ever known are subjective experiences.

Name something you have known that was not.
 
According to this, "objective evidence" is not an oxymoron. It's a perfectly meaningful expression.

Oxymoronic statements have meanings.

But the meanings are in contradiction.

All evidence is a subjective experience.

What is called "objective" evidence is when the reports about the subjective experience of some group of people are in agreement.
 
Congratulations. You have achieved Radical Skepticism. As such, there is now no reason for you to post anything further as nothing that is posted can ever be confirmed by you as anything other than your own brain talking to itself.

To continue responding to anything written is to engage in mental masturbation. You have attained the level of insanity.

You being bothered won't change one bit of it.

The only thing you have ever known are subjective experiences.

Name something you have known that was not.

You are asking your own brain this question and your own brain is responding. You are insane.
 
Congratulations. You have achieved Radical Skepticism. As such, there is now no reason for you to post anything further as nothing that is posted can ever be confirmed by you as anything other than your own brain talking to itself.

To continue responding to anything written is to engage in mental masturbation. You have attained the level of insanity.

You being bothered won't change one bit of it.

The only thing you have ever known are subjective experiences.

Name something you have known that was not.

You are asking your own brain this question and your own brain is responding. You are insane.

If his brain is responding "You are insane", it's doing better than most. :D
 
You are asking your own brain this question and your own brain is responding. You are insane.

If his brain is responding "You are insane", it's doing better than most. :D

I guess that is an advantage of schizophrenia, several internal but independent personalities can analyze each other's "statements". Hopefully, at least one of those personalities is sane.

The old "brain in a jar" philosophy does present some odd problems.
 
Congratulations. You have achieved Radical Skepticism. As such, there is now no reason for you to post anything further as nothing that is posted can ever be confirmed by you as anything other than your own brain talking to itself.

To continue responding to anything written is to engage in mental masturbation. You have attained the level of insanity.

You being bothered won't change one bit of it.

The only thing you have ever known are subjective experiences.

Name something you have known that was not.

You are asking your own brain this question and your own brain is responding. You are insane.

I am asking anybody with a mind reading this.

I do not ask my brain questions.

I tell my brain to move my arm. Now!
 
You are asking your own brain this question and your own brain is responding. You are insane.

I am asking anybody with a mind reading this.

I do not ask my brain questions.

I tell my brain to move my arm. Now!
WTF... Now you think that you actually have an arm. Given your "philosophy", how do you "know" this? Isn't it just your subjective impression?
 
You are asking your own brain this question and your own brain is responding. You are insane.

I am asking anybody with a mind reading this.

I do not ask my brain questions.

I tell my brain to move my arm. Now!
WTF... Now you think that you actually have an arm. Given your "philosophy", how do you "know" this? Isn't it just your subjective impression?

I tell what I experience as my arm to move and it does.

I have said again and again.

All a human has are their subjective experiences.

They have nothing else.

This is a fact some do not like.

They have no answer to it though.
 
Back
Top Bottom