Another Crazy Thread From Cdowis

[Spammer 504]

19 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Preferences for ice cream are not "paradigms"

Paradigms are statements verified within a community as being "true"

I am simply saying that I think there is no religion which would not affirm that being the best human we can become is a good idea, and gives us an example of that in action who himself is a human being and belongs to a community of human beings who have achieved the same status.   The community aspect is key- no human wants to be alone without a community of like beings.

Show me a few counter examples if you like.  Honestly this is not "matrix" stuff- this is generally accepted philosophy today.

And of course you have failed to show the grounds for accepting a "true arbiter" who's word we should accept above what God tells us personally.

It's the same kind of problem and you don't see that.   At some point it's all up to you to decide.

How did you know that Orthodoxy was better than Catholicism or Mormonism?

Who was your arbiter in making that decision?   Who told you to do it?  A natural person or God ie: yourself??

If a natural person what qualities did he have that impressed you enough to choose that person as an arbiter of what God says is best for you?

I acknowledge all the issues you raise. Everything boils down to testimony. Same for me in my spiritual journey. The problem is, without access to an objective standard, an arbiter, testimony equates to personal preference. With no access to an objective standard for determining the objectively ‘best,’ changing paradigms is really no different than changing flavors of ice cream. There’s no basis other than personal preference for determining the truth, which is really only what’s best for me, what tastes best to me. Alma 32. What ever produces fruit that tastes good is good. Who’s to say Jim Jones’s followers didn’t believe their path tasted just as good as yours tastes to you? If they had a testimony, really believed God spoke to them through Jim Jones, then God really spoke to them, just as He spoke to you, since subjective belief and meaning creates our truth. If their paradigm tasted good to them and it brought them meaning (up until the point they were dead), then their path was just as true as yours. And mine.

Edited December 11, 2018 by Spammer

[hope_for_things 3,153]

16 hours ago, CV75 said:

18 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

True, but one has a track record of performance for delivering results that absolutely crushes the other.  

Now that's a wonderful example of biased rhetoric which turns around and abuses the concept you said you agree with.

I don't see a conflict, maybe you can elaborate further.  For me, we have different spheres of operating in.  For simplicity purposes, the subjective sphere would include all the things that can't be evaluated using objective criteria.  This sphere would include art, religion, music, love, etc.  Communities have their traditional preferences for what they find works best for their paradigms.  

Then on the other side of the equation we have science & scholarship.  Objective criteria are created to evaluate the utility and accuracy everything that falls into this category.  Peer review, rigorous attempts to disprove and refine and follow the evidence are all part of the process.  It crosses over communities and culture and tradition.  It is the most accurate way of knowing how the universe we inhabit and it attempts to remove bias from the process.  It also has a clear and amazing track record.  

16 hours ago, CV75 said:

As demonstrated in our latest exchange above, you are the one "flipping" direction. I would suggest this is an emotional reaction to facing the problems posed by your personally subjective bias and rhetoric. You seem to believe in spheres of truth but cannot manage them. One key to managing them is realizing they needn't be reconciled at all, but simply used where they are best suited. At some point there well could be a unifying or overarching sphere of truth for them, but first some dexterity with them individually must be mastered.

For example, the Book of Mormon is not designed to lead to wealth or scientific discovery, but the spiritual power gained by abiding its precepts may facilitate such (it so much as says this in several places). Business and science are not designed to lead to spiritual enlightenment, but they can facilitate an environment where someone can hear the word with attention and open mindedness. It all depends on the individual's treatment of these things according to his personal, subjective experience.

I have a problem with people trying to minimize the differences between these two spheres.  If by "managing them" you try to discount or dismiss the clear advantages of the objective sphere of knowing, then I have a problem with that.  When you make a statement that everything is filtered through our human bias, you would be correct on that very specific point.  But when you draw a conclusion that says, therefore, science is just as flawed as religion when it comes to understanding how the universe works, you are engaging in a logical fallacy.  Your premise does not support your conclusion whatsoever.  

As for spiritual power gained from the BoM, it is another subjective claim that is no different than someone claiming spiritual power from crystals or a lucky rabbits foot.  Its essentially just the placebo effect.  

[hope_for_things 3,153]

2 hours ago, Spammer said:

I acknowledge all the issues you raise. Everything boils down to testimony. Same for me in my spiritual journey. The problem is, without access to an objective standard, an arbiter, testimony equates to personal preference. With no access to an objective standard for determining the objectively ‘best,’ changing paradigms is really no different than changing flavors of ice cream. There’s no basis other than personal preference for determining the truth, which is really only what’s best for me, what tastes best to me. Alma 32. What ever produces fruit that tastes good is good. Who’s to say Jim Jones’s followers didn’t believe their path tasted just as good as yours tastes to you? If they had a testimony, really believed God spoke to them through Jim Jones, then God really spoke to them, just as He spoke to you, since subjective belief and meaning creates our truth. If their paradigm tasted good to them and it brought them meaning (up until the point they were dead), then their path was just as true as yours. And mine.

Yes, testimony is essentially just confirmation bias, and there is no objective standard or way to measure my testimony as being more valid than someone else's testimony.  

The problem with confirmation bias is that people in abusive situations and with mental health issues also have this same confirmation bias towards things that are quite harmful to them.  I'm sure my early Mormon ancestors had testimonies that they should practice polygamy.  I'm sure that Warren Jeffs had a testimony of his deplorable practices.  Testimony and confirmation bias need to be honestly and carefully evaluated. 

Testimony by itself is not an intelligent way to operate in this world, that is why I constantly try to emphasize the importance of the MIND part of the equation, using reasoning, logic, and rational thought.  This mind part is also in the Mormon tradition, but unfortunately there are strains within Mormon orthodoxy that like to think that confirmation bias trumps the intellect, and I they often bear testimony about how they exercised faith in their bias and how they were rewarded for making a decision that was logically the wrong decision.  This kind of dominance in the tradition is a concern of mine.  

[CV75 4,845]

30 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't see a conflict, maybe you can elaborate further.  For me, we have different spheres of operating in.  For simplicity purposes, the subjective sphere would include all the things that can't be evaluated using objective criteria.  This sphere would include art, religion, music, love, etc.  Communities have their traditional preferences for what they find works best for their paradigms.  

Then on the other side of the equation we have science & scholarship.  Objective criteria are created to evaluate the utility and accuracy everything that falls into this category.  Peer review, rigorous attempts to disprove and refine and follow the evidence are all part of the process.  It crosses over communities and culture and tradition.  It is the most accurate way of knowing how the universe we inhabit and it attempts to remove bias from the process.  It also has a clear and amazing track record.  

I have a problem with people trying to minimize the differences between these two spheres.  If by "managing them" you try to discount or dismiss the clear advantages of the objective sphere of knowing, then I have a problem with that.  When you make a statement that everything is filtered through our human bias, you would be correct on that very specific point.  But when you draw a conclusion that says, therefore, science is just as flawed as religion when it comes to understanding how the universe works, you are engaging in a logical fallacy.  Your premise does not support your conclusion whatsoever.  

As for spiritual power gained from the BoM, it is another subjective claim that is no different than someone claiming spiritual power from crystals or a lucky rabbits foot.  Its essentially just the placebo effect.  

I operate in the spheres you mention, and many others. Because I am the one doing the operating, all spheres present subjective experiences to me, no matter how much it can be said that I may be influenced, manipulated or controlled to operate in such-and-such a fashion. Because I am doing the operating, I can coordinate, integrate, and compartmentalize all the spheres according to the perceived advantages of my operations within them in achieving my aims.

Labeling some spheres as “objective” and others as “subjective” misses the point and is irrelevant to sapiens being the ones having experiences in relation to them.

Science is just as flawed as religion only because we are flawed and thus perceive and handle principles of truth in a flawed manner, and not because we have subjective experiences in the various spheres. No logical fallacy there, since less flawed people also have subjective experiences within the same spheres. For a god, the two spheres would be, and yield, perfectly perceived principles and perfectly executed actions.

Intellectual power gained from a western science tradition (which apparently you subscribe to) is a subjective claim that is no different than someone claiming it comes from an eastern scientific tradition. It's not a matter of placebo, but of subjectivity and bias.

[clarkgoble 5,003]

58 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Science is just as flawed as religion only because we are flawed and thus perceive and handle principles of truth in a flawed manner, and not because we have subjective experiences in the various spheres. No logical fallacy there, since less flawed people also have subjective experiences within the same spheres. For a god, the two spheres would be, and yield, perfectly perceived principles and perfectly executed actions.

Intellectual power gained from a western science tradition (which apparently you subscribe to) is a subjective claim that is no different than someone claiming it comes from an eastern scientific tradition. It's not a matter of placebo, but of subjectivity and bias.

It seems to me the obvious way to judge between what you see as subjective claims is to make predictions. If not all systems get their predictions right at the same rates, then presumably we can say one is less flawed than the other.

You're attempting to say they're all the same because they all are subjective, but that seems a problematic claim. Especially when you don't explain what counts as a flaw or not.

Edited December 11, 2018 by clarkgoble

[hope_for_things 3,153]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

I operate in the spheres you mention, and many others. Because I am the one doing the operating, all spheres present subjective experiences to me, no matter how much it can be said that I may be influenced, manipulated or controlled to operate in such-and-such a fashion. Because I am doing the operating, I can coordinate, integrate, and compartmentalize all the spheres according to the perceived advantages of my operations within them in achieving my aims.

Labeling some spheres as “objective” and others as “subjective” misses the point and is irrelevant to sapiens being the ones having experiences in relation to them.

Science is just as flawed as religion only because we are flawed and thus perceive and handle principles of truth in a flawed manner, and not because we have subjective experiences in the various spheres. No logical fallacy there, since less flawed people also have subjective experiences within the same spheres. For a god, the two spheres would be, and yield, perfectly perceived principles and perfectly executed actions.

Intellectual power gained from a western science tradition (which apparently you subscribe to) is a subjective claim that is no different than someone claiming it comes from an eastern scientific tradition. It's not a matter of placebo, but of subjectivity and bias.

I was just about to say what Clark astutely said, and then I read his response.  I will echo what he said and just add one point to that.  You can measure the success of these claims in a controlled experiment to see which are more accurate methods for determining outcomes.  

Also, in your world where all spheres are equally flawed, then every pseudo-science wacko that thinks his/her homeopathic remedy can cure your illness is just as valid a treatment as actual scientifically tested medicine with proven results.  How you do go about choosing a treatment for whatever illnesses you and your family have?  Surely you don't trust every claim equally?  Do you have a method for determining what to trust?  

Edited December 11, 2018 by hope_for_things

[CV75 4,845]

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

It seems to me the obvious way to judge between what you see as subjective claims is to make predictions. If not all systems get their predictions right at the same rates, then presumably we can say one is less flawed than the other.

You're attempting to say they're all the same because they all are subjective, but that seems a problematic claim. Especially when you don't explain what counts as a flaw or not.

The universe (mine, anyway) contains both religious and scientific systems, so within their respective spheres, and on their respective terms, they each help us understand how the universe works.

So yes, you make predictions, test, and judge the worth of each sphere of truth on its respective terms using its respective methodology. You do this as a subjective experience with your attendant flaws and bias (and who doesn’t?). When comparing two systems and you decide which system is better than another, this is a reflection of your personal experience and bias, which of course you will justify according to the system’s standards and results and your own purposes for using them.

If you think I am attempting to say all systems are the same (or flawed) because they are subjective (how on earth can a system even be subjective?) you are mistaken. Read what I wrote carefully, without bias. I am saying all systems are the same (flawed) because subjective people are applying them and drawing their own conclusions within them. People are the only “subjective systems” there are (if you really must identify something as a subjective system--this is the error@hope_for_things made), and they are the ones using the systems under discussion, but a system is no more subjective than a hammer.

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I was just about to say what Clark astutely said, and then I read his response.  I will echo what he said and just add one point to that.  You can measure the success of these claims in a controlled experiment to see which are more accurate methods for determining outcomes.  

Also, in your world where all spheres are equally flawed, then every pseudo-science wacko that thinks his/her homeopathic remedy can cure your illness is just as valid a treatment as actual scientifically tested medicine with proven results.  How you do go about choosing a treatment for whatever illnesses you and your family have?  Surely you don't trust every claim equally?  Do you have a method for determining what to trust?  

Some systems use controlled experiments and some do not. So what? Would you use controlled experiments in a truth system that doesn’t use them, and not use them in a system that does? Be my guest, but that is not how I address the best treatment of illness, whether spiritual or physical.

You keep clinging to the mantra that "science is the best tool for every job" when I am describing an approach that uses "the best tool for the job at hand."

Edited December 12, 2018 by CV75

[hope_for_things 3,153]

58 minutes ago, CV75 said:

some systems use controlled experiments and some do not. So what? Would you use controlled experiments in a truth system that doesn’t use them, and not use them in a system that does? Be my guest, but that is not how I address the best treatment of illness, whether spiritual or physical.

You keep clinging to the mantra that "science is the best tool for every job" when I am describing an approach that uses "the best tool for the job at hand."

Not sure why we can’t measure the success rates of methods of knowing, across different systems.  If someone claims to have a knowledge of the future, we can setup a test to evaluate their claim.  If another claims to have the power to heal people, we can test it.  

And just to clarify, I didn’t say science is the best tool for every job.  I didn’t marry my wife because of what science says.  But I also recognize that this subjective experience of love is in another sphere of evaluating.  

[mfbukowski 15,231]

11 hours ago, Spammer said:

I acknowledge all the issues you raise. Everything boils down to testimony. Same for me in my spiritual journey. The problem is, without access to an objective standard, an arbiter, testimony equates to personal preference. With no access to an objective standard for determining the objectively ‘best,’ changing paradigms is really no different than changing flavors of ice cream. There’s no basis other than personal preference for determining the truth, which is really only what’s best for me, what tastes best to me. Alma 32. What ever produces fruit that tastes good is good. Who’s to say Jim Jones’s followers didn’t believe their path tasted just as good as yours tastes to you? If they had a testimony, really believed God spoke to them through Jim Jones, then God really spoke to them, just as He spoke to you, since subjective belief and meaning creates our truth. If their paradigm tasted good to them and it brought them meaning (up until the point they were dead), then their path was just as true as yours. And mine.

Yep.

Unless you want to set up the arbiter for humanity when you yourself say 

Quote

Everything boils down to testimony. Same for me in my spiritual journey.

What- you want to take away people's responsibilities for bad decisions?  

Welcome to existentialism.   

Got a better theory that is coherent?

The LDS paradigm is that this is a test to find the best paradigm as defined by their paradigm, just like all religions.  And agency requires that you can get it wrong.

But the notion of possible progression after death makes even making a mistake perhaps the best decision for people mired in confusion even if it results in suicide.   They wake up on the other side and find missionaries and we know that eventually "every knee will bend"

If you want to believe that God sends people to hell for what they have done you have to believe that what you propose is could be the case.  Even from your pov I believe we either we have "agency" to choose or not - and that means choosing incorrectly is a possibility.

But our view suggests that correction after death is a possibility if that happens.

[mfbukowski 15,231]

7 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

It seems to me the obvious way to judge between what you see as subjective claims is to make predictions. If not all systems get their predictions right at the same rates, then presumably we can say one is less flawed than the other.

You're attempting to say they're all the same because they all are subjective, but that seems a problematic claim. Especially when you don't explain what counts as a flaw or not.

I predict he will go to the celestial kingdom.

I am sure he will tell us if he doesn't and then we will have real evidence! 

 

[CV75 4,845]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I predict he will go to the celestial kingdom.

I am sure he will tell us if he doesn't and then we will have real evidence! 

 

Your prediction is correct but they sent me back due to a technical error.

[CV75 4,845]

13 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Not sure why we can’t measure the success rates of methods of knowing, across different systems.  If someone claims to have a knowledge of the future, we can setup a test to evaluate their claim.  If another claims to have the power to heal people, we can test it.  

And just to clarify, I didn’t say science is the best tool for every job.  I didn’t marry my wife because of what science says.  But I also recognize that this subjective experience of love is in another sphere of evaluating.  

I invite you then to evaluate the success rate of claiming to know the real reasons (not just thinking you know them) for marrying your wife using a scientific method of evaluation, and share your observations and conclusions.

What you are proposing to test is not a system, but a subjective behavior within a system. You are testing the person, not the system.

[hope_for_things 3,153]

50 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I invite you then to evaluate the success rate of claiming to know the real reasons (not just thinking you know them) for marrying your wife using a scientific method of evaluation, and share your observations and conclusions.

What you are proposing to test is not a system, but a subjective behavior within a system. You are testing the person, not the system.

I understand that the reasons that I fell in love with my wife aren't easily evaluated using science.  I also understand that my behaviors that led to my falling in love are subjective.  

I agree that if a test were setup, we would be testing the claimed behaviors of individuals within belief systems, and there would be some variability across individuals for sure, but I don't see how this is any different than taking a survey of a population and expecting individual variability.  That is why you increase your sample size to get a representative result.  

Are you claiming that its not possible to evaluate the accuracy of a shaman that believes voodoo has real effects or whether some homeopathic remedy actually works.  Are you saying its not possible to evaluate any of these religious claims?  

[CV75 4,845]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I understand that the reasons that I fell in love with my wife aren't easily evaluated using science.  I also understand that my behaviors that led to my falling in love are subjective.  

I agree that if a test were setup, we would be testing the claimed behaviors of individuals within belief systems, and there would be some variability across individuals for sure, but I don't see how this is any different than taking a survey of a population and expecting individual variability.  That is why you increase your sample size to get a representative result.  

Are you claiming that its not possible to evaluate the accuracy of a shaman that believes voodoo has real effects or whether some homeopathic remedy actually works.  Are you saying its not possible to evaluate any of these religious claims?  

It’s not a matter of ease. Describe how it has been done, albeit difficultly.

Everyone is free to evaluate anything they want to, using whatever methodology and standard they wish, just like the shaman and the homeopathic practitioner have. You are not going to use methods and standards you don’t know or believe in to test a new claim any more than they do, and knowledge and belief are personal, subjective experiences. Proving to them that their beliefs and practices don’t yield results, or that they yield results for reasons other than those they have accepted, or proving to them that your beliefs and practices are better or yield the same or better results for different of better reasons, requires a meeting of both your subjective experiences on some agreed-upon point, whether that be scientific, mystical or folk.

[hope_for_things 3,153]

3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

It’s not a matter of ease. Describe how it has been done, albeit difficultly.

 

Everyone is free to evaluate anything they want to, using whatever methodology and standard they wish, just like the shaman and the homeopathic practitioner have. You are not going to use methods and standards you don’t know or believe in to test a new claim any more than they do, and knowledge and belief are personal, subjective experiences. Proving to them that their beliefs and practices don’t yield results, or that they yield results for reasons other than those they have accepted, or proving to them that your beliefs and practices are better or yield the same or better results for different of better reasons, requires a meeting of both your subjective experiences on some agreed-upon point, whether that be scientific, mystical or folk.

 

You're talking about convincing another person that their perspective is flawed, which I see as a different task than just evaluating the efficacy of these beliefs people have.  Accuracy is important.  What actually works and has an impact in a measured way is important.  Especially if the results are greater than placebo.  Science can tell us this, and we can evaluate certain religious and superstitious claims to test them for efficacy.  Not all theological ideas can be evaluated of course.  

[Spammer 504]

13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yep.

Unless you want to set up the arbiter for humanity when you yourself say 

What- you want to take away people's responsibilities for bad decisions?  

Welcome to existentialism.   

Got a better theory that is coherent?

The LDS paradigm is that this is a test to find the best paradigm as defined by their paradigm, just like all religions.  And agency requires that you can get it wrong.

But the notion of possible progression after death makes even making a mistake perhaps the best decision for people mired in confusion even if it results in suicide.   They wake up on the other side and find missionaries and we know that eventually "every knee will bend"

If you want to believe that God sends people to hell for what they have done you have to believe that what you propose is could be the case.  Even from your pov I believe we either we have "agency" to choose or not - and that means choosing incorrectly is a possibility.

But our view suggests that correction after death is a possibility if that happens.

Is there an objective good against which our behavior is measured? How about an objectively best paradigm? If yes to either, can they be identified through experience, ie an internal subjective process? How does this work, if there’s no necessary correspondence between our inward experience and anything external to ourselves?

For morality, perhaps we see the objective good inwardly. That’s CS Lewis answer, or the notion of the Light of Christ dwelling in each of us. On that ground, the Jim Jones cult did something very bad and we can validly judge it as such. I can accept that we inwardly perceive the good. Like 2+2=4 in our current reality, we see inwardly that it just is and always must be. Hence, the universal belief that murder and self-harm is wrong.

How about assessing paradigms? Do we inwardly perceive the objectively best one? I say no. If no, how do you determine that your paradigm is best? Perhaps because in your estimation you think the LDS notion of eternal progression maximizes the inwardly-perceived objective good?  

Just curious about your process and thinking out loud. What I’d  to know is how you determine your paradigm is ‘better’ or the ‘best,’ when the objectively ‘best’ paradigm is inaccessible to our subjective cognition and experience? 

I don’t think there’s any debate that murder is objectively bad. Whether your paradigm is objectively the best is debatable. I’ve evaluated paradigms relative to (what I think is) the Good and arrived at a different conclusion. Are you able to persuade non-LDS that your paradigm is objectively the best? If so, on what grounds? If through a subjective Alma 32 ‘taste and see’ process, does that yield objective evidence, evidence that transcends the subject? It seems not. If our experience=our reality, then varying experiences yield varying objectively best paradigms, each individually experienced and perceived. We’re going in circles, no closer to identifying the objectively best paradigm.  

Do you see a way out of the impasse?  I don’t. The implication is that, on grounds of charity, a life of ‘live and let live’ is part of the objective good, since the one true paradigm - true because it’s independently true, not because you subjectively determined it to be so - is objectively indeterminate.

 

 

Edited December 12, 2018 by Spammer

[CV75 4,845]

16 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

You're talking about convincing another person that their perspective is flawed, which I see as a different task than just evaluating the efficacy of these beliefs people have.  Accuracy is important.  What actually works and has an impact in a measured way is important.  Especially if the results are greater than placebo.  Science can tell us this, and we can evaluate certain religious and superstitious claims to test them for efficacy.  Not all theological ideas can be evaluated of course.  

You presented examples of evaluating others’ systems, but you will notice that I addressed both convincing yourself as well as them about what is flawed (and alternatively, what is perfect, and what is anyplace in-between... but you initiated the "strength" of science and "flaw" of religion discussion so i'm running with that). Changing your mind is as subjective an experience as them changing theirs, whether that was done with another individual (or experience) serving as a catalyst or not.

[hope_for_things 3,153]

12 minutes ago, CV75 said:

You presented examples of evaluating others’ systems, but you will notice that I addressed both convincing yourself as well as them about what is flawed (and alternatively, what is perfect, and what is anyplace in-between... but you initiated the "strength" of science and "flaw" of religion discussion so i'm running with that). Changing your mind is as subjective an experience as them changing theirs, whether that was done with another individual (or experience) serving as a catalyst or not.

It still seems pretty clear to me that certain claims can be evaluated for accuracy using the tools of scholarship.  

[mfbukowski 15,231]

1 hour ago, Spammer said:

Is there an objective good against which our behavior is measured? How about an objectively best paradigm? If yes to either, can they be identified through experience, ie an internal subjective process? How does this work, if there’s no necessary correspondence between our inward experience and anything external to ourselves?

For morality, perhaps we see the objective good inwardly. That’s CS Lewis answer, or the notion of the Light of Christ dwelling in each of us. On that ground, the Jim Jones cult did something very bad and we can validly judge it as such. I can accept that we inwardly perceive the good. Like 2+2=4 in our current reality, we see inwardly that it just is and always must be. Hence, the universal belief that murder and self-harm is wrong.

Well yes that is it right there- but notice - per your quote- Lewis does not use the word "objectively" as far as I know.

Internally and objectively in this context are opposites- in my context  "objectively" MEANS externally (whatever that means because using that word "external" is already creating a dualism- nothing is "external" in idealism)

So to me, objective and external are the opposites to subjective and internal

Yes we "see the good internally" and we pretty much universally agree except about abortion, war vs pacifism, capital punishment etc.

So I do not use the word "objective" in such contexts- I just set up a paradigm unto itself - morality.

It is a category of understanding just like the perception of the color called "red" upon which everyone agrees - virtually except for the mentioned exceptions etc- it is another context for "truth" which takes a community to establish and therefore within that community understanding murder is always wrong and the statement "murder is wrong" is "true"

Now there have been communities which have disagreed with that statement- notably in Germany in the 1940's- but the larger community had to declare against that paradigm because it was simply intolerable to let it go on.  Now of course Germany has gone back to accepted norms of humanity

So for me seeking an "internal " perception for something external is a contradiction 

And that is why the correspondence theory really does not work for anything even science!  All scientific observations are also the "internal" observations of individual  scientists which agree -in interpretation- with the "scientific community".   So geologists across the world agree internally that when rock x is placed in the gizmo meter- it reads "147" - but that is an "internal"observation felt "internally" until they put it into words or publish it.   Then scientists everywhere make the "same" experiment and individually and internally see the meter say "147".   At that point it becomes "objective" that rock x has a gizmo meter reading of 147- and therefore..... whatever according to the current paradigm of what that means.

So yes internal observations and feelings become public through language- and people agree with them and then they are taken to be "objective"

You cannot know if the color you see as red is the same color I see but only that we have both learned the community accepted word "red" to describe that sensation.  If you got it wrong your teacher corrected you until the name for that sensation was paired mentally with what was community accepted as being called "red" 

I didn't know until I was 6 years old that people could see clearly with both eyes - because i could not.

I simply thought that no one could see well through their left eye!!   That dang eye still gives me problems but it has helped me make the distinction that we definitely do not all see things the same- quite literally!  So for me I eventually learned that the way my eye function was "wrong" because I was told it was.  I got glasses and it became much "better" because now both eyes saw the same thing.

How often do you ask a kid if both of their eyes see the same thing?  Never!

So in a tiny tiny way I understand Helen Keller who "sees" the world differently in a major way and did not even get the idea of language until she was 7.  

So FOR ME what is "objective" is what is agreed upon within a paradigm, but people understand it as being "what is external" and yet as Helen Keller and I can tell you what is "external" is not always a hard and fast observation since we all observe things differently.

So for me- everything at first is "internal" until it becomes "external" by agreement

And philosophers agree- Thomas Nagel, Rorty and others

[CV75 4,845]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

It still seems pretty clear to me that certain claims can be evaluated for accuracy using the tools of scholarship.  

Of course. That is what people do.

But how would you answer my comment above, "It’s not a matter of ease. Describe how it has been done, albeit difficultly" in response to your claim / confession of belief that "I understand that the reasons that I fell in love with my wife aren't easily evaluated using science."

 

[hope_for_things 3,153]

8 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Of course. That is what people do.

But how would you answer my comment above, "It’s not a matter of ease. Describe how it has been done, albeit difficultly" in response to your claim / confession of belief that "I understand that the reasons that I fell in love with my wife aren't easily evaluated using science."

 

You honestly want me to explain how I fell in love with my wife?  

[CV75 4,845]

27 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

You honestly want me to explain how I fell in love with my wife?  

Since you brought it up as an example of what science can do, yes.

But my original request, which I subsequently modified to accommodate your interpenetration of it, was actually quite different: "... to evaluate the success rate of claiming to know the real reasons (not just thinking you know them) for marrying your wife using a scientific method of evaluation, and share your observations and conclusions."

I would rather you explain that. I understand the neuroscience of love, but not the scientifically-derived success rate of knowing the reasons (including love, though I don't want to make any assumptions), and that is what I actually asked about.

[hope_for_things 3,153]

15 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Since you brought it up as an example of what science can do, yes.

But my original request, which I subsequently modified to accommodate your interpenetration of it, was actually quite different: "... to evaluate the success rate of claiming to know the real reasons (not just thinking you know them) for marrying your wife using a scientific method of evaluation, and share your observations and conclusions."

I would rather you explain that. I understand the neuroscience of love, but not the scientifically-derived success rate of knowing the reasons (including love, though I don't want to make any assumptions), and that is what I actually asked about.

It sounds like you misunderstood what I said.  I didn't say science could tell us much about how someone falls in love.  I said the exact opposite, that the experience of love is a subjective human experience and that the tools of science can't really tell us much about it. 

Edited December 12, 2018 by hope_for_things

[CV75 4,845]

47 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

It sounds like you misunderstood what I said.  I didn't say science could tell us much about how someone falls in love.  I said the exact opposite, that the experience of love is a subjective human experience and that the tools of science can't really tell us much about it. 

OK. But you did say that the subjective experience of love is in another sphere of evaluation and that we can measure the success rates of methods of knowing across different systems. What makes knowledge of love and other reasons to marry someone and its success rate any less evaluable than other subjective experiences you mentioned in the same post, such as knowledge of prognostication and healing?

[hope_for_things 3,153]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

OK. But you did say that the subjective experience of love is in another sphere of evaluation and that we can measure the success rates of methods of knowing across different systems. What makes knowledge of love and other reasons to marry someone and its success rate any less evaluable than other subjective experiences you mentioned in the same post, such as knowledge of prognostication and healing?

It’s because of the unique claim of healing which can be objectively evaluated.  My love for my wife has no similar claim that I can see.