The Limits of Objectivity: A Philosophical Inquiry into the Nature of Existence

[RonSewell (RonS)]

@LRT

In the case of the thermometer example, factors such as the method of temperature reading, the placement of the thermometer, the standards used to determine accuracy, the decision to measure, the operator’s technique, environmental conditions, timing of the measurement, interpretation and context of the data, the choice of thermometer type, and calibration—are done by an observer and play a role in what is considered ‘objective’ measurement.

Basic rule of instrumentation - thermometers do not tell environmental temperature - they tell their own temperature. What makes a thermometer objective is not its accuracy, but that it is a physical reality which then all observers may read the same.

[John_Harshman]

@Giltil

Take away identity and you have no stable objects, no stable meanings, no repeatable experiments, hence no science.

It seems to me that this is more about language than reality. A thing is itself. That’s what the words mean. It’s not a necessary assumption, just a statement about the meanings of words.

[Dan_Eastwood]

@Giltil

@Dan_Eastwood

No time to look into this today (getting ready for a trip) but I’m pretty sure that excluding (or weakening) Identity puts a strong limits on the sort of reasoning allowed. It might not be total chaos, but the set of provable proposition would be considerably smaller.

My sense is that by excluding the law of identity, the set of provable proposition would be considerably smaller, to the point of being reduced to zero.

I found reference to systems the “weaken” identity, which means Set Theorists have been looking at the question. (I’ve been away to a family wedding so I haven’t tried to look anything up yet.)

I don’t the set of provable props will be zero, but it’s likely to be trivial, so for practical purposes I think you are right.