You must log in or # to comment.
Yes please lets have a semantic debate in which no one defines their terms
truth isn’t subjective, but perspective changes how you see something.
It’s rather curious how those people who claim truth is subjective never do it for gravity, jumping off a high building while claiming “gravity is false for me”. Because guess what, odds are they know it’s bullshit.
Personally, I don’t believe in football.
that’s A football, not Football. we’re allowed to hit one moleman in the groin.
Ahyuk yuk!
You might have to goad them a bit with “it’s only a theory”
I doubt you’ve come across someone who claims that all truth is subjective all the time in all scenarios.
The example you give isn’t an example of subjective truth, it’s an example of wilful/conscious control of reality, which isn’t the same thing.
I also doubt you’ve met anyone that claims truth is subjective to their will at any time they choose.
It’s entirely possible, but unlikely.
Someone on earth vs someone on the ISS have different gravitational experiences for instance.
I doubt you’ve come across someone who claims that all truth is subjective all the time in all scenarios.
I wish I could say I’ve never came across this sort of muppet. But… *sigh*
The example you give isn’t an example of subjective truth, it’s an example of wilful/conscious control of reality, which isn’t the same thing.
Wilful control of reality in this case requires truth to be subjective; and conversely, if truth is subjective you can control reality. You’re right they aren’t the same thing, but they’re clearly tied.
Someone on earth vs someone on the ISS have different gravitational experiences for instance.
The experience is different because the person in the ISS is simply not close enough to Earth to be subjected to Earth’s gravity, in any practical amount. But that doesn’t mean gravity stopped existing for them.
Someone on earth vs someone on the ISS have different gravitational experiences for instance.
The experience is different because the person in the ISS is simply not close enough to Earth to be subjected to Earth’s gravity, in any practical amount. But that doesn’t mean gravity stopped existing for them.
Ooh, time for science pedantry! The ISS is plenty close enough to Earth to experience almost the same gravity from the planet as on its surface, which is why it has to be orbiting at such speed - falling sideways fast enough and at the right angle so as not to come crashing down!
The experience is different because the person in the ISS is simply not close enough to Earth to be subjected to Earth’s gravity, in any practical amount.
It sounds like someone still hasn’t played KSP! Play it! It’s great. You’ll learn a lot, and you’ll have fun doing it.
Stuff doesn’t stay in orbit because there isn’t gravity. It stays there because it’s moving sideways while it’s falling down, so it doesn’t hit the thing it’s orbiting. Without gravity it’d be able to just sit in space wherever it wants. Rockets mostly don’t go up, they go sideways. There wouldn’t be a geosyncronus orbit as all orbits would allow you to just sit above any location you want. A geosyncronus orbit is one that the amount it has to move sideways is, in degrees from the center of earth, the same amount the earth rotates.
the ISS is simply not close enough to Earth to be subjected to Earth’s gravity, in any practical amount
Imagine being this convinced that one’s understanding of gravity is objective truth, while also being this wrong about how gravity works
The experience is different because the person in the ISS is simply not close enough to Earth to be subjected to Earth’s gravity, in any practical amount. But that doesn’t mean gravity stopped existing for them
sort of. they just keep falling and missing
Wilful control of reality in this case requires truth to be subjective
Hmm, maybe. Others have covered this and it doesn’t quite seem perfectly true, but let’s let that slide.
and conversely, if truth is subjective you can control reality
No, that definitely doesn’t follow. If truth is subjective it doesn’t at all mean you can control it. It just means that what is true for you might be different from what is true for me. The reason that’s the case isn’t a part of that equation.
I wish I could say I’ve never came across this sort of muppet. But… *sigh*
Yeah…
Wilful control of reality in this case requires truth to be subjective; and conversely, if truth is subjective you can control reality. You’re right they aren’t the same thing, but they’re clearly tied.
Not really…to any of that.
There’s no reason gravity control requires a subjective truth.
An unusual level of reality control could exist within an objectively truth based system. It would just have to adhere to the constraints.
Perhaps you mean omnipotence? I’m not sure on that one either, but definitionally it usually implies complete control, im not sure if that’s within a fixed system or not.
Reality control and subjectivity can be tied if an example ties them somehow, but it’s not a given.
The experience is different because the person in the ISS is simply not close enough to Earth to be subjected to Earth’s gravity, in any practical amount. But that doesn’t mean gravity stopped existing for them.
Yep, that’s why I went with gravitational experience instead of one having gravity and the other not.
There’s no reason gravity control requires a subjective truth.
In this case, it does.
Let me put it this way: is the statement “there’s a phenomenon called «gravity», experienced by all massive bodies, that accelerates them in relation to other massive bodies” epistemically true?
If truth was subjective, the answer would be “true” or “false” depending on the subject. For those whom the answer is “false”, this means they would not experience the phenomenon, even in situations other subjects would; e.g. near Earth. That implies they’d have at least some control over experiencing gravity, because they could simply say “it’s now true for me” and fall, or “it’s now false for me” and stop falling.
Let me put it this way: is the statement “there’s a phenomenon called «gravity», experienced by all massive bodies, that accelerates them in relation to other massive bodies” epistemically true?
Scientifically, maybe? Because that’s what the scientific method is, best approximations given the knowledge we currently have.
But let’s assume yes for the purposes of this reply.
If truth was subjective, the answer would be “true” or “false” depending on the subject.
And context.
Same subject different circumstances, different gravitational forces.
For those whom the answer is “false”, this means they would not experience the phenomenon, even in situations other subjects would; e.g. near Earth.
That’s a binary interpretation of a non-binary system.
But again, for the purposes of this reply, sure.
That implies they’d have at least some control over experiencing gravity, because they could simply say “it’s now true for me” and fall, or “it’s now false for me” and stop falling.
There’s a big assumption there that this is a binary.
Gravity control, doesn’t have to be binary.
It doesn’t even have to be direct, they could achieve the same effect by increasing or decreasing mass.
But let’s say it’s magic, direct control.
In an objective system where gravity exists it would conceptually be possible to control the level of gravity acting upon yourself without turning it on or off fully.
In a subjective system where gravity could exist or not depending on subject and context, the same is conceptually true.
Which brings me back to:
There’s no reason gravity control requires a subjective truth.
Emphasis mine.
The fact that people feel different gravitational pull based on where they are doesn’t make the concept of gravity different for each of them. You’re just using the wrong word to describe the acceleration produced by gravity, rather than gravity itself.
That’s why technical definitions (so we speak the same language) and education (si we understand that language) are important!
Sure, i could have specified i was talking about the gravitational pull rather than the concept of gravity as a whole.
I was, however, replying to a message that was specifically talking about gravitational pull, so i assumed it was understood i was referring to the same.
Nevertheless i stand by my assertion, I’ll be specific though so it’s clear.
The idea of some sort of magical control of gravity (and all of the concepts covered by that word) wouldn’t necessarily be a binary on/off.
in a theoretical system where gravity was an objectively provable truth that consisted of an on/off state, control would mean being able to turn that system on or off, either as a whole, but more specifically in this case, for a specified subject.
in a theoretical system where gravity was an subjective phenomena, control would mean being able adjust the effect of that phenomena to some degree.
The systems I’m talking about here are my interpretation of the the systems posited by the person to which i was replying.
Which , again, brings me back to:
There’s no reason gravity control requires a subjective truth
For completeness, I should have probably said:
There’s no reason gravity control requires a subjective truth ( using the exmples of subjective/objective truth as proposed by the person to which i am replying )
That’s why technical definitions (so we speak the same language) and education (si we understand that language) are important!
Agreed
As an aside:
You’re just using the wrong word to describe the acceleration produced by gravity, rather than gravity itself.
What word was i using incorrectly and in what context? , genuine question.
I see you have cleverly noticed there is a 3D object in the meme image that is casting both projections.
This argument is one that is very, very difficult to have because it veers too closely to people’s first principles.
On one side, we have people who know they are forced by reason to believe in all truths that appear before them.
And on the other, we have people who have decided they will choose to believe in all truths that appear before them.
Like, it’s just a semantic difference. Nobody on the subjectivity side, nobody rational anyway, disagrees with the concept of gravity, we are just simply aware of our power as fallible human beings to destructively choose not to.
That said, there is something very dangerous about being in the second group of people, but thinking you’re among the first. And frequently, it becomes a problem when science brushes up against cultural fields it has more trouble explaining.
It is not always possible to see the 3D object. The ability to recognize that two groups can both be ‘correct’, like in a Newtonian way, even when they disagree with each other is a very useful skill.
no no i’ve gotten really high and ass-philosophical and sometimes we take ridiculous positions (e.g. horses are just poorly behaved long dogs) just to see how long it takes for the other person to figure out we’re high off our ass and giggling inside the entire time.
Good spot, i should have said “truly believes” instead of “claims”.
Truth
Subjectively?
Speculative and Technical
The best kind of technical.
Correct!
In Einstein’s general relativity, different observers can disagree about the order of timed events, so long as their individual stories don’t violate causality. This is broadly known as the Relativity of Simultaneity.
[Warning: bar philosophy. Might include ramblings, booze, chain smoking, and fried snacks.]
And yet, gravity is still there.
Even if simultaneity is relative, the phenomenon is still there, you know? You can claim something fell before or after another event, but you can’t really claim it didn’t fall. And you can’t claim two simultaneous events stopped being simultaneous if they’re stationary for you, so it’s less of a “truth is relative to ME! ME! ME!” and more of a “truth is relative to that speed”. It’s still an objective matter, not a subjective one.
Individual control of truth is a superpower. It definitely violates causality, it also isn’t what those people really mean by “truth is subjective”
so it’s less of a “truth is relative to ME! ME! ME!”
This, I think, is an argument that exists in your head only. An excellent example of relativity, if I’m being honest.
I don’t understand why subjectivity makes people so uncomfortable. Like, people would fight each other over the objectively correct temperature for the AC of their building if you let them—I just, I don’t get it.
This, I think, is an argument that exists in your head only.
This is blatantly false. The argument exists in the comment I wrote. If it existed only “inside my head”, you wouldn’t access it. Because nobody knows what’s “inside someone else’s head”, nor we (people in general) should lie = assume = bullshit otherwise.
An excellent example of relativity [SIC - subjectivity], if I’m being honest.
Also false. While I believe my argument is correct, there’s also the chance it’s incorrect. If it is correct, my belief is true. But if it is incorrect, it won’t magically become “true for ME! ME! ME!”; I’d be simply holding a false belief. But either way, that depends on the argument itself, not on the fact I’m the one voicing it or analysing it or whatever. The subject here (me) still doesn’t fucking matter. And that’s bloody common sense.
I don’t understand why subjectivity makes people so uncomfortable. [implied* by context: “relativity makes lvxferre uncomfortable”.]
Okay… first off, let me address the most pressing matter: in no moment you showed that this “truth is subjective” babble would be even remotely true.
Secondly. You’re making a bloody mess of “relativity” and “subjectivity”, as if both were synonymous. Get shit right dammit — subjectivity is a specific type of relativity regarding the subject. Showing time is relative to speed does jack shit to prove things would be relative to the subject, i.e. “gravity is false for me lol I’m jumping from the building!”.
Thirdly. Why are you bullshitting = assuming = lying about what I’m comfortable or not with? You have no way to know it, don’t lie you do. I’m not uncomfortable with subjectivity. I simply consider it such inane bullshit, that I’m outright mocking it. Just like I’d mock flat Earth, souls, zodiacal signs, aliens visiting Earth on weekends, et cetera.
Finally, drop off the Reddit style sealion: “I dun unrrurstand” followed by bullshit? Seriously, keep this shit in Reddit.
Like, people would fight each other over the objectively correct temperature for the AC of their building if you let them—I just, I don’t get it.
Gotta love assumptions…
Not wasting my time further with you.
*see Gricean maxims, specially the one of relevance.
Showing time is relative to speed does jack shit to prove things would be relative to the subject,
With this attitude, I just don’t feel like you’d be living up to Einstein’s manner of thinking. Just too rigid.
in no moment you showed that this “truth is subjective” babble would be even remotely true.
Uh. Subjectively, I think it’s true.
I really don’t think you even understand what I was trying to say with all that.
i.e. “gravity is false for me lol I’m jumping from the building!”.
Who is saying this?
If you jump out of a bridge, you will still break your face on the ground for every reference frame outside of a black hole.
Not if the bridge is over water. Water isn’t ground. Truth is subjective!
I believe that’s true, yes. Your point?
Sure, if you’re traveling near the speed of light. For everyone on Earth, no one has ever experienced this (beyond a micro level that doesn’t matter and no one is discussing).
wait i wanna discuss the micro level
what the fuck tell me more this is neat
Your head ages faster than your feet do! :D
By such a small amount that it would never, ever matter, but it’s still cool to know!
This small difference does actually become relevant when trying to explain gravity, though.
As I’m sure you’ve heard, objects in free-fall do not feel an acceleration. Instead, objects in an inertial frame travel along straight world lines through curved spacetime “down” toward the gravitational source. Light is “pulled” into large objects because that’s what a straight line looks like to a light beam.
I have a question, though: why is that I can’t feel gravity during a free-fall, but I can feel my own weight when standing on the Earth? Isn’t that kinda weird?
(I’m wrapping the rest in a spoiler tag out of mercy to mobile users.)
Tap for more paragraphs.
Wouldn’t everything I just said suggest that if I can feel the direction of gravity, it must be because I’m accelerating somehow? If I were blind and in free-fall, I wouldn’t be able to tell what direction “down” even is, and yet, the muscles in my legs tell me very explicitly that they are “lifting” me.
The answer, or a very useful answer, anyway, is that something is accelerating: the ground. The stationary ground accelerates up through curved spacetime to push me. That’s how I can tell.
But how does the ground accelerate without moving? Shouldn’t the Earth expand if it’s accelerating?
We’re definitely approaching the limit of the things I can explain at the moment, but the key is time dilation. The fact that your head ages faster than your feet is the reason why the Earth doesn’t expand. It accelerates without moving because time is also curved.
You can think of it this way: If you were to graph the position of objects through time, the Earth’s surface might curve toward the y-axis, the time axis, because it is accelerating. But, the y-axis also curves “away” from the Earth’s surface in the same way, such that they maintain their distance. And so, the Earth doesn’t appear to move.
Isn’t that cool?
It is why physics was my favorite science class. Thanks for taking the time to write all that out
No problem :D
I learned about the expanding earth bit like a week ago and I was very excited about it, haha.
At relative speeds, yes. Why do you think I disagree with this?
what is the difference between what is true and what merely is? because truth is the former, gravity is the latter.
truth is the former
i.e. “the truth is what’s true”. Wow, deep.
who said i was trying to be deep?
I wonder if belief has anything to do with reality. Hmm.
Eh, probably the universe is a cold, dead clockwork of matter that spontaneously and randomly fell into place with only the barest of coincidences we can try to grasp as objective truths with which to define our sensationally complex environment.
Although . . . it is just as possible that matter arises from something more fundamental to something like a universal order, such as consciousness.
I dunno though, they never told me.
Eh, probably the universe is a cold, dead clockwork of matter
This, but unironically.
Spoilers: we’re riding some weird rock in the middle of the empty space.
An Orange Box on the left wall, a blue portal on the right.
Science routinely solves problems like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photo_51
In some sense this is the very heart of science: taking disparate views of the world and drawing likely conclusions that are testable and reproducible.
Genuinely though, English seems to lack the distinction between truth (the absolute state of something being universally true), truth (something that is correct from some point of view) and truth (an idea someone is dedicated to).
Some other languages have different words for these “truths”. You could say that first is truth, second is perspective, and third is an idea, but all three can be named “truth”, which can easily spark a debate over simple misunderstanding of what you mean, exactly.
Truth opinion and belief
I would argue that the first and third are perversions of the word. A truth that is universal should be called a law. Like the law of entropy. Unfortunately the word “law” has also ben twisted to mean legal policy. The third should be “belief,” as it is what you hold inside you. Religion call their beliefs “truth” to push their agenda.
The obsession to have dedicated words when one would rarely bother to specify and just use the generic term anyway will forever elude me.
There is very little difference to me between saying two 1 syllable words and one two syllable words. And English is a very packed language. Most english wordy things already have meaning and reserving a 1 syllable thing that is sufficiently different to be distinguishable is just not realistic.
English has loads of words for the spectrum between fact and baseless claim, it’s just people have decided “truth” is contested, this is mostly that news on both sides of American politics report differently, producing often conflicting supposed facts, to the point where people say truth doesn’t matter anymore
People take that idea differently, from the sane end where it’s just the state of sectarian news through to the crazy end where they think nothing is real
Illustrative is one side of American political followers didn’t believe in COVID-19, the other side wore masks, avoided gatherings, and got vaccinated when vaccines became available
English is a dogshit creole that also lacks distinction between libre and gratis and “cultural artist” and “visual artist” (Turkish : sanatkar v ressam)
English is not a creole language.
To keep it simple, a creole language originates from children learning a pidgin (a contact “language” with barely any grammar), and “gluing” the lexicon with features on the spot. To the point its grammar doesn’t resemble any of the parent languages over the course of, like, a single generation.
In the meantime English is simply a West Germanic language that got a bunch of borrowings from Old Norse and then Norman+French. Those borrowings don’t change affiliation.
Regarding the distinction between “libre” and “gratis”: it’s simply that “free” displaced “costless”. That sort of semantic shift happens, it’s most of the time internal (i.e. not caused by interference of other languages).
It does not at all lack the ability to distinguish between any of those things, it just doesn’t do so in single words
The only thing you know is that you know nothing. Really a pointless conversation unless you wanted to circle jerk on Lemmy. oh wait
How we go about living our lives on only partially-available and unreliable information is one of the most practical and important questions of all! Who do we trust? What assumptions should we make?
It’s funny you bring that up, I offer a 6-week course on who to trust and what assumptions you should make!
what, you ain’t familiar with the double cylinder experiment?
The twist:
It’s actually a flat piece of paper.
How very Escher of you…
Truth is subjective.
Maybe you’re an empiricist, and you think seeing is believing. But how did you verify that your visual processing cortex is showing accurate data?
Maybe you’re a rationalist, and you think that logic can reason us towards objectivity. But syllogism requires premises. Premises require evidence or axioms. How did you choose your axioms?
Maybe you’re a conformist, and you think agreement with other people will correct errors in your individual perception. But other people are human too. How are you going to correct for errors in the collective genome? How do you know other people exist?
Donald Hoffman ran thousands of evolutionary simulations. He compared organisms that perceive the simulated world accurately with organisms that perceive only fitness payoffs. Fitness always beats truth. Truth always goes extinct. Your ancestors were the creatures that used hacks and oversimplifications to turn the complicated world around them into a simple mental model. That simple mental model is your perception of the universe.
There is no scientific definition of an object. What makes some molecules one object and not another? Human convenience of perception. You’re not even a single species. You have tiny bacteria in every cell of your body with their own separate genome, processing glucose into ATP for you. Not to mention bacteria such as firmicutes and bacteriodes that help your digestive system process food. And are you the body containing all of these different organisms, or just a pattern of neural impulses? If your brain were simulated by an advanced computer, copying the function of every neuron, would it be you?
It’s subjective.
What about gravity? It doesn’t exist, we just collectively hallucinate that stuff falls
That’s just nihilism.
Well I don’t believe matter or spacetime objectively exist, so I don’t think gravity objectively exists either. To borrow from Donald Hoffman’s language, I take gravity seriously but not literally. I know that gravity represents something which is important to our species’ survival, which is why we all perceive it. But I do not think it is as simple as we perceive it to be with our eyes. I do not think it is even as simple as Einstein described it. I think the truth is much, much more complicated.
That’s at least admitting that something exists, but it’s more complicated than what we currently understand of it!
My current standing is with “poetic naturalism”, in which we acknowledge that something exists and that we build, based on our subjective experience, models of knowledge. And that we must use epistemic tools (ex: the scientific method) to overcome our subjectivity.
Overcome subjectivity? No, no, no! The desire for objectivity makes us weak and easy to control. The rich use their control of the media to exploit that desire for their own gain. They’ve created a subjective reality, pretending to be objective, which upholds the evils of capitalism. You mustn’t try to overcome subjectivity.
Subjectivity is freedom. If everything is subjective, and we understand the rules of that subjectivity, then we have the power to reinterpret our condition according to our own sense of justice. We can make ourselves a new subjective unreality, based on fairness and justice. We can create a multiverse of unrealities, and travel between them as easily as believing.
Take gender, for example. Traditional western culture tells us (as children) that gender is objective, and the answers are to be found in the biology of the cell. Written into our genes is the objective truth of gender, if only we have the curiosity to find it. This desire for objectivity is poison. Those who have clung to it into adulthood have become bitter and hateful, and have sought to take away our right to medicine.
But I know that gender is subjective. It’s socially constructed, and we should choose to reconstruct it in the best way possible, that makes everyone happy. Let people have whatever gender they want. Choose to believe in new genders, choose to perceive new gender presentations. Choose freedom through subjectivity.
The whole point of objectivity is that it allows for cooperation and understanding between people with different experiences. People can invent whatever ideas they like, but by testing those ideas against an objective physical standard, it becomes possible to determine which one is more correct. Without that, when views diverge, people default to stuff like “might makes right.”
Critical thinking is a process of examining and questioning of one’s preexisting beliefs, through rationality. Without that process, what you have is either the ideas that you have passively absorbed through society (primarily, the ideas of the ruling class), or your own made up stuff that other people have no reason to agree with, leading to an inability to unite around an alternative and a de facto victory for the status quo. Subjectivity is not true freedom, because it leads to division and confusion, and division is incapable of resisting oppression, “For what force on earth is weaker than the feeble strength of one?”
It’s such a pet peeve for me the way you’re always trying to tie the validity of trans identities to a rejection of objectivity. Trans rights are objective! It is factual, testable, observable, that supporting trans identities has a positive effect on people’s mental health. In rejecting objectivity, you are, in fact, opening the door to say that subjective perspectives that are transphobic are just as true as anything else.
That which is subjective is debatable, and trans rights are not up for debate.
Well put
It is factual, testable, observable, that supporting trans identities has a positive effect on people’s mental health.
This is true (trans rights \m/), however, you are taking your scientific conclusions over the is/ought gap. Why is it valuable that any person’s mental health improve? Can you not think of any examples where you might want something else?
you are, in fact, opening the door to say that subjective perspectives that are transphobic are just as true as anything else.
Subjectivity does not require equivalency. In fact, the scientific objectivity you’re leaning on is supported by the very cultural domination of opinion I would suggest is more important.
That sentence is wack, so let me reexplain: The strict adherence to objectivity as a first principle, as an axiom, is a subjective choice. A very useful one.
Without that, when views diverge, people default to stuff like “might makes right.”
People do this regardless. Republicans, for instance, have kind of abandoned the idea that truth even matters. Very stupid of them, yes, but also, they are currently winning.
If really love to be able to subjectively stop eating and sleeping, waste of time… I’d be free from that.
There are many social constructs about which what you say is possible, but there is still some underlying world which will nit change.
Ignoring all of the world’s problems will not make them go away, you have to acknowledge them and face them. Although it’s okay to take breaks from the world to rest and recuperate! But don’t simply escape reality and let the bad people take it all…
I believe you’ve mistaken My intentions of how I plan to use this principle of antirealism. I had hoped to imply by My use of the words “fairness” and “justice” that I am not interested in creating a perfect unreality only for Myself. That would be selfish. I have no intention of leaving humanity to rot and wallow in the capitalist consensus reality. I seek to spread this power and freedom to all the working class people of the world. I am an advocate, a politician. I want to kill the capitalist mind prison by convincing every person in the world to abandon objectivity. Let us work together to build our unreal multiverse.
My first moment of unreality came when I was an unhappy “cis” “boy”, scrolling through Reddit. I saw a meme with a simple message: If you want to be a different gender, don’t rely on some external sign of the truth. Just do it. Make your own truth.
So I did. And starting from that one act of defiance against the gender binary, I have followed My joy to make My own truth, all the way beyond consensus reality. I am now happy. But I’m also angry. I’m angry because there are so many other trans kids in the world letting society tell them what objective reality is. There are people committing suicide because their subjective reality is unbearable. One of them was My sister. Another, My friend. I don’t believe in criminalising or stigmatising suicide. I believe in criminalising and stigmatising the practices that make good people want suicide. Nobody should feel like they need an escape from the universe they live in.
If you want to live in a different universe, you should already have the training required to imagine yourself into a different subjective universe. Suicide is a problem of people believing their circumstances are objective. I know the mental techniques required to reprogram My perceptions. I call those techniques magic, because they are changing My unreality through belief. I am angry that other people do not have the same techniques. I will teach those techniques to the people. And the first step is to embrace your subjectivity as a source of freedom and power.
The more subjectivity you can find, the more fulcrums you have on which to balance your mental levers. Those mental levers are your mastery of your own beliefs.
Give Me a lever long enough, and a fulcrum on which to balance it, and I shall move the Earth.
Yeah, I appologise for missing the context and coming with such an adversarial tone… Being a person that can easily pass as typical (ND white guy), I didn’t think of the social aspect of the topic.
Natural science methods cannot be applied on social sciences in an ethical way… I don’t want to push for that.
I also don’t want to hear “Climate change is subjective and doesn’t apply to my subjectivity, because it was cold this winter.”
From a scientific point of view, all type of gender and sexualities exist in nature, and I’m sure it’s a mistake to assume humans are binary. https://youtu.be/Jxs2yHP6K2E
The object’s ness is objective. The projection is your own dumbass ways of perceiving it because you lack the ability to objectively observe.
Because you used ness, i instantly thought of Loch Ness and imagined that there is a duck that lives in that loch whose shadow was randomly made huge by a boats light one evening resulting in the proceeding mania. Thus leading to the highly confusing situation for Duck Ness of waddling about telling people she’s who they’re looking for while they ignore her or threaten to put her in a pie.
Exactly why it’s only $3.50
Truth can be subjective, in one scenario: when it’s not the complete truth.
However an incomplete truth is via omission, thus making it a lie.
It’s only a lie if there’s intent to deceive. Mistakes are not lies and false memories are not lies.
Therefore lies are subjective
Gödel , Escher, Bach, an eternal golden braid
Oh yeah. I remember attempting that. Lotta words in there.
There is no truth, only interpretations.
