By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
RadiantDanceMachine on 01 February 2016
Edit Thread
Derek89 said:

"outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings."

You quote wikipedia, you fail to understand what it says AND to relate it with what I said.

Did objectivity's conventionalism part of my comment confused you too much to ignore it all together and call for individual objectivity and rule it out at the same time? I ruled it out myself with my previous comment, and you try counter argument with that, lol?

Also, if you'd bother reading your own "sources":


"The importance of perception in evaluating and understanding objective reality is debated. Realists argue that perception is key in directly observing objective reality, while instrumentalists hold that perception is not necessarily useful in directly observing objective reality, but is useful in interpreting and predicting reality. The concepts that encompasses these ideas are important in the philosophy of science."

 

You don't just "generalize" theories or use their summaries to try to use in your advantage.

What is really baffling to me is how clearly desperate you are to look smart yet you resort to use a closed answer discussion for easy argumentation against literal believers. If you want to look smart, you should use ontological resources to expand the discussion, but you limit it to the all so basic "objectivity".

You seemed to be arguing against the paraphrasing I offered of what objective means. What other way am I supposed to have taken your rebuke?

The paraphrase was essentially identical to the wiki definition of objective (philosophy). 

There are two possibilities here:

1. You were attempting to offer correction and were actually wrong.

2. You were confused about the minimum words I used to explicate objectivity.

I really don't see any alternative possibilities here.

I didn't address instrumentalism because it's irrelevant to the OP. Focus is important in discussions such as this. If you come into a steakhouse and attempt to order some lumber, you're going to receive a blank stare. 

Hahahaha, can you see no other alternative to the purpose here? Is it not important to bring to light the lack of objectivity involved in a theistic position? The reliance on alleged witness testimony, on feelings in the heart, on wishful thinking. Honestly, you've totally missed the boat on this one I'm afraid.

At no point have I closed the topic to the empirical, only the objective. That includes the entirety of philosophical argumentation. But, as you can plainly see, the believers tend not to bother with logic and apologetics.