Objective Truth

 If there is no objective truth then whatever a person says is true. This leads to contradictions.

When there is a contradiction, one statement must be false and the other must be true.

John, for instance, is either at home or he is not. If someone says John is at home and another person says John is not home, only one of these statements can be true. Similarly, it is either right or wrong to date your professor who is already married.

Protagoras, a Greek philosopher of the 4th century BC, maintained "man is the measure of all things." Protagoras is saying each individual determines what is true, and nobody else. If I am the "measure", then I determine what is true; I determine what is right and wrong.

In many ways this is the Age of Protagoras. In today's moral climate individuals decide for themselves what is true, and then they decide what the right thing to do is. Our laws function in this manner, and now our schools more and more.

An objective truth or good does not appear to exist any longer; it's only what is "true for me," and what is "right for me.

Objective truth serves to establish norms of moral behaviour whereby a person can say what is right and wrong.

Man is not the measure of all things. Objective truth is the measure.

Objective truth refers to information or statements that correspond to reality independent of individual perspectives, emotions, or biases. It remains constant regardless of who observes or interprets it. The concept finds its roots in logic and empirical evidence, emphasizing the necessity of verifiable and repeatable facts. 

In philosophy, the idea of truth as objective is straightforward: some things will always be true and other will always be false, irrespective of our beliefs or opinions. Our personal convictions have no bearing on the facts of the world around us. That which is true remains true, even if we stop believing it or cease to exist altogether.

Most people, in their daily lives, implicitly act as though they believe in objective truth. We assume that our clothes will still be in the closet in the morning, even though we stopped thinking about them during the night. We expect our keys to be where we left them, even if we don’t actively believe this at the moment. These assumptions are rooted in the idea that things happen independently of our beliefs.

Scientific research also operates under the assumption of objective, independent truths. Scientists make predictions based on theories and then test those predictions. If the tests succeed or fail, it doesn’t matter how many researchers believe in the outcome—the results stand on their own. This process relies on the existence of objective truths that remain unaffected by our subjective beliefs.

While there are logical and pragmatic reasons for assuming that truth is objective, some skeptics challenge this position. Nevertheless, our daily functioning depends on the idea that certain things are objectively true, regardless of our individual perspectives.  So, whether we’re discussing the height of Mount Everest or the length of a banana, objective truth remains a fundamental concept in our understanding of reality.

Common Sense Principles Of Discussion

 

         Effective and civil discussion is absolutely essential in reestablishing science on its firm foundation. Since discussion has

in recent times become less and less clearly centered on its purpose — which is to get to the truth — we find we have

developed bad habits of discussion. Indeed it often happens that, despite our good intentions, discussions degenerate

into incivility. It is our hope that the following thoughts will help restore the right emphasis and civility in conversation.

l) The aim of discussion is to arrive at a precise statement of a problem and a true answer. It is profitable if progress in achieving this goal is made even if there is not ultimate success.

2) The first step in critical thinking must be to state a problem clearly in the form A is B, or at least that A is not B.

Many disagreements arise from not being clear about what problem is to be solved.

3) lf you are speaking to someone who has more education and knowledge in the field under discussion, give deference

to him. This means that conversation will not equally split with each person speaking 50 % of the time. Clearly, the

one who has more knowledge will necessarily have to spend more time relating it.

a)

The receiver of knowledge should not resent the giver merely because the giver gives more, i.e. speaks more. Indeed,

like the receiver of a wonderful material gift, the spiritual gift of knowledge should be received with sincere appreciation. Few who receive a gift of gold will respond with accusations of unfairness about the inequity involved of them not being able to respond in kind. Rather, most will receive it with great thanks and enthusiasm as lottery winners do. Since the spiritual gift of knowledge is literally infinitely more valuable, the gratitude of the receiver of knowledge

should be immense.

b) One essential way of showing gratitude to the giver, which is also an exercise of justice, is to remember his gift and acknowledge him to others. Remembering is key in the process of finding and verifying trustworthy sources, for one needs to remember who has given what to be able to note whose information is reliable.

The giver should always act and respond charitably to the receiver, never using his knowledge as a club to assert superiority. Instead, the giver should remember that his own knowledge is ultimately itself a gift. Even first hand knowledge is not our own, for it ultimately comes from the external world, which in turn is from God.

c)

Both sides should be grateful for the opportunity for discussion, because, if nothing else, it is an opportunity to be present to your fellowman, through the exercise of the highest human power: the intellect. After all, you are conversing with a being made in the very image of God and in that very conversing you are manifesting and seeing manifested that image, which is man’s intellectual power. Beyond this, the receiver should be thankful for the new understanding he receives and the giver for the new perspective opened up to his own mind by carefully answering the points made

by the receiver. For each party, it is the opportunity to serve his fellowman.

Letter To A Physicist

 

This letter was an answer to a physicist who asserted that science has priority, not philosophy.

        There is ’science’ then there is the ’scientific method’; you do not seem to acknowledge their differences. Knowledge, prediction (even if mathematical) is science as much as philosophy is science. The philosophical a priori that one need to do ’science=knowledge’ can make all the difference in how I view the usefulness or nature of the ’scientific method’, a method based on logic, therefore philosophy.

For example, if I assume philosophically (you might say scientifically, having your experimental goal in mind) that ’all there is’ is, or can be, mathematically accessible or understandable. That assumption is a philosophical one, not a scientific one.

The Scientific Method measures and counts, If I assume that all I care and worry about can be measured and counted so far so good. We are all witnesses to how far that Scientific Method has taken us.

I do not for an instant doubt or question the utility, the grandeur of the Scientific Method. Far from me the thought. But in the realm of Knowledge (Science if you will) it is only part of the story.

In the realm of Knowledge science is limited

BRAIN DEATH

 This an introduction to an article from the National Library of Medicine.

The article can be found here: Brain death and true patient care - PMC (nih.gov)

Summary: Though legally accepted and widely practiced, the “brain death” standard for the determination of death has remained a controversial issue, especially in view of the occurrence of “chronic brain death” survivors. This paper critically re-evaluates the clinical test-criteria for “brain death,” taking into account what is known about the neuro-critical care of severe brain injury. The medical evidence, together with the understanding of the moral role of the physician toward the patient present before him or her, indicate that an alternative approach should be offered to the deeply comatose patient.