How so? If in whatever language I have two objects in a container, and I add two more objects into the container I will have four objects in the container. Or is there some other point you’re trying to make here?
There are many kinds of inferences. If it’s a deductive inference that is either true or false, it means it is able to be objectively confirmed one way or the other. If it is any other type of inference, inductive, abductive, etc., that cannot be shown to be either true or false but only likely or plausible, it is not able to be objectively confirmed but relies on its degree of being likely or plausible. So its confirmation would rely not only on objectively observational evidence, but subjective individual judgments based on whatever established criteria are utilized.
I would argue in part. I think evidence plays the biggest role in judging the weight of an inference.
If I’m not mistaken, this would be a deductive inference if it means that it is either true or false based on the observation. That’s a case that would be able to be objectively confirmed. Starting from an observation and working upwards would be induction where more than one hypothesis could be proposed, meaning it wouldn’t be either true or false but able to have different options. This would be a case where subjective judgments would be involved in ascertaining a degree of confirmation, i.e., how likely a particular option is to be true.
If I add 2 moles of hydrogen and 1 mole of oxygen to a container and add a spark I will end up with 1 mole of water. 2+1=1
Are you saying that all inferences are subjective and none can be objective?
It is still an inference because conclusions drawn from these types of hypotheses are tentative. False hypotheses can still be supported by evidence. This is why hypotheses are tested through independent methods since this reduces the chances of a false positive.
What you’ve got is H2O which is 2H+1O = 3 elementary moles (math) which bound together form 1 water mole (chemistry). If you have 2 water moles + 1 water mole you get 3 water moles. In math got to stick with what’s being described on both sides of the equation.
No. My understanding is that valid and sound deductions are objective, they’re either true or false independent of what someone thinks. In the case of an hypothesis, it is subjective. The objectively deductive aspects in science come from a subjective prediction (what one would expect to happen) that can either validate (true) or invalidate (false) the hypothesis based on what’s objectively observed.
I think I follow what you’re getting at. Let me know if my reply makes sense. As I understand it the outcome from an observation for a particular prediction of an hypothesis is what would indicate if the hypothesis is valid or not. If H is true, then P. P, therefore H is true; not P, therefore not H is true.
Now as far as I know, deductive arguments which are truly objective have to be valid and sound for the inference to be objectively true. So the prediction “if H is true then P” needs to be a correct prediction, otherwise the argument wouldn’t be sound. But as long as the prediction is correct the inference is guaranteed to be true or false, depending on the results of the objective observation.
So a deductive inference is objective in itself. But the premises of the deductive argument themselves may or may not be objective which affects whether or not the argument is objective as a whole. If there are objections to the premises, then the inference is also objectionable and therefore in a sense is rendered subjective even though it objectively logically follows from the premises.
So if the hypothesis is validated, that means it is accepted as tentatively true based on current scientific knowledge and understanding. The reason for it being tentative, I would argue, is because there are so many aspects of hypothesis and theories that are subjective, in fact it seems most of it is based on subjective inference—which as far as I can gather, are only indirectly supported by objective observations and somewhat objective deductions—that any conclusions have to and always will be tentative to the availability of new and contrary insights and discoveries.
@jim, it really seems like you are trying to rework a lot of epistemology, and would benefit from what some of the professionals have already done here. Would you be up for reading a few articles, or ideally a book, and discussing how you respond to it?
Before I get too far into this. Why should I read an article about logical positivism? I don’t hold to such, as I’ve already mentioned. And I’m certainly not promoting it in my comments. My comments are wholly within the context of epistemology in science, not knowledge in all fields of study.
Yes. But they use that criteria to say that if it can’t be empirically verified, it is meaningless and adds nothing to human knowledge. In other words, anything that can’t be empirically verified is just imagination.
This doctrine, also known as logical positivism or simply positivism, held that all knowledge lies within the purview of science.
What I’m arguing is in the context that empirical verification should be applied in the field of science where it is meant to be applied, not to other fields like metaphysics which itself is a field of study that deals with reality that lies totally outside of empirical verification. There’s a big difference between positivism and what I’m saying.
Would you at least agree with their division between scientific and non-scientific, even if you don’t agree with their other conclusions?
That’s fine. You seem to be trying to draw a line between objective and subjective. Can you find anything in that article that could help you better define that difference?
Don’t think so. As far as I know you can’t empirically verify quantum particles. If so I don’t see how that would work as a division.
Not offhand. But a simple way to go about it would be:
Objective is anything that is independent of what someone thinks or feels.
Subjective is anything that is dependent on what someone thinks or feels.
I’ve read the article. It seems to me that I’ve made it pretty clear that I’m not a positivist, but you don’t seem to think that’s the case. Again, I’m not saying that science is the only way to epistemic discovery. So I’m not confusing science with epistemology as far as I can tell. Science is one way of “knowing”, but it’s not the only way.
I don’t know how else to say it so that you will realize that I’m not promoting positivism. Or maybe there’s something your getting at which I’m totally unaware of. If that’s the case you’ll need to elaborate more on what it is because so far it’s not been expressed in a way that I am able to grasp it.
If you mean something like do minds exist, then it would be objective in that it exists independent of whether or not someone thinks or feels it is so.