SCIENCE IS NOT OBJECTIVE

You're yet to prove how our senses are either

1. misperceiving reality
2. reality doesn't exist

If we agree on time, and that we can have something physical outside of us which acts different to us all differently (depending on both our physiology and location). I'm unsure why you keep saying this weird Quanta argument with overly complex jargon. If Science has admitted we can come to facts on physical things existing outside of us while them being both subjective to a perceivers phenonemelogical experience and it being a physical reality. You're still yet to prove your argument.

I'm not sure where Stephen Hawkins said we should value hawking radiation. It was simply an observation. What we do with that knowledge (applied science) is different from theoretical science (observational science). If he subconsciously believed we should value his discovery to worship him or what not, that still doesn't deny (from a non-applied science stance) his discovery wasn't objectively correct assuming materialism. Hence, you kind of have to assume solipsism in your argument.

> 'Statements of fact' ('positive' or 'descriptive statements'), based upon reason and physical observation, and which are examined via the empirical method.
> 'Statements of value' ('normative' or 'prescriptive statements'), which encompass ethics and aesthetics, and are studied via axiology.

agreed

but it is a category error to apply the term "objective" to "statements of fact" (QUANTA)

and it is an even more egregious error to apply the term "objective" to "statements of value" (QUALIA)

> Time is inseperateable from the fabric of space. Meaning it is a physical property, but acts on different perceivers differently through their own perception. Hence, both objective (real outside my mind) but subjective on each person.

time is not merely "perceived differently"

speed and gravity slow down time QUANTIFIABLY

a clock at sea-level runs slower than a clock at 40,000 feet

a clock at 40,000 feet runs slower than a clock in orbit

The fact–value distinction is a fundamental epistemological distinction described between:[1]

'Statements of fact' ('positive' or 'descriptive statements'), based upon reason and physical observation, and which are examined via the empirical method.
'Statements of value' ('normative' or 'prescriptive statements'), which encompass ethics and aesthetics, and are studied via axiology.

Regardless if I value an apple or what i think or percieve it to be (assuming materialism) it exists even if I don't. I'm unsure why you're not getting that.

"einstein made it exceedingly clear that time is ALWAYS relative to the observer

there is no "universal clock""

Time is inseperateable from the fabric of space. Meaning it is a physical property, but acts on different perceivers differently through their own perception. Hence, both objective (real outside my mind) but subjective on each person.

Can you answer the time question? what we do with objective facts (such as 1 plus 1 equals 2) what i choose to do with these facts has nothing to do with whether or not they are facts. This isn't a moral objectivity debate, I'm unsure why i have to bridge any is-ought gap in this discussion.

> Time is subjective but objective at the same time, is it not?

einstein made it exceedingly clear that time is ALWAYS relative to the observer

there is no "universal clock"

for example,

you learn about physics and all the mass and velocity and geometry

why ?

to become famous ?

to make money ?

to make your family proud ?

or do you perhaps want to use that knowledge to BUILD SOMETHING ?

perhaps you want to build a missile system

or more likely, part of a missile system

why ?

why do you want to contribute to the construction of weapons-of-mass-destruction ?

is it because you are afraid of something ?

AXIOLOGY = QUALIA

are you familiar with HUME'S GUILLOTINE ?

you still have yet to prove why something cannot be objective through a subjective perceiver. Science blatantly disagrees with you here. I've already said you've made of leap of logic and you're yet to explain why it isn't. You just keep saying the same thing over and over, which I've already admitted is true but I don't find too relevant.

Time is subjective but objective at the same time, is it not?

> Regardless of my motive for calculating mathematical equations, irrespective of how hard i press the chalk on the board or beg for a different answer, my answer will remain the same if im doing the maths correctly.

we agree on this point

why you are "doing the maths" is motivated by QUALIA

the specific "doing the maths" is sample biased

and the CONCLUSIONS (not the sums) you draw from "doing the maths" is also pure QUALIA

Materialism posits that matter creates the mind, hence when the mind ceases matter doesnt. That means regardless if you can see the oranges, grab, peel them etc. They exist. Your idea is predicated on the idea that this is wholly incorrect or we miss percieve so much to the point where doing maths on the outside world is also...incorrect.

Why is the way you feel about things the only thing that matters? I personally hate the number 666, does the number 666 now not equate to 666 separate pieces/parts of something?

Regardless of my motive for calculating mathematical equations, irrespective of how hard i press the chalk on the board or beg for a different answer, my answer will remain the same if im doing the maths correctly.

everything humans consider "important" is QUALIA

i'm not suggesting "if you have two oranges and someone takes one orange from you then you don't have one orange left"

that's QUANTA (but not technically "objective")

how you feel about the oranges and how you feel about the person taking one of the oranges is QUALIA

how you feel about things is the only thing that matters

perhaps i'm allergic to oranges and i'm unable to remove the oranges myself for some reason and i'm happy someone removed one of them and i hope they will remove the other one soon

perhaps i'm desperately hungry and i am enraged that someone took one of my oranges and will surely plot revenge

perhaps i didn't even notice that i had acquired two oranges, perhaps along with some number of other items, and thus "losing" one of them has no impact on my state-of-mind

scientific data may be considered "objective" (QUANTA) perhaps, but it is still SAMPLE-BIASED and the result of MOTIVATED-REASONING

there is no such thing as data that is "free-from-bias"

but

even if

we allow the data itself to qualify as "objective" (by twisting the definition a bit)

THE "SCIENTIFIC CONCLUSIONS" are never "objective"

the IMPLICATIONS of a "scientific study" are pure human speculation, colored by QUALIA (which is inarguably subjective)

Your personal experience or contact with something can be coloured by your subjective consciousness whilst it remaining an objective fact it exists outside of you. Time is the perfect example to this. If I have 2 oranges and take away 1 am i not objectively left with 1 orange?
Another example would be the way i view a lion is my own personal interpretation. yet assuming materialism a lion definitely exists regardless of how I choose to perceive it, or how it makes me feel or the impressions it gives me. Unless you want to go full blown solipsist, if you choose to go down that route you shouldn't fear a lion, as even if you die your mind shouldn't. All solipsists are hypocrites, they say one thing then do another.

This is why your philosophy is predicated on the idea of assuming either the senses wholly incorrect and incoherent or that reality doesn't actually exist.

All of what you said is true, but I'm unsure why it debunks anything i claimed. Simply saying qualia is personal and emotionally meaningful doesn't mean you've now proven just from that you cannot come to objective facts of the outside world. There's a unjustified leap of logic there. Time is subjective to me, does time not exist outside of me? your idea is predicated on the idea (once more) that we cannot accurately assess the outside world due to our own subjective perceptions. I brought up the point of WHICH perceptions are subjective?

The definition you use is a very philosophical one and not used in general lexicon. Its a very philosophical tern coined from materialism vs idealism, and has literal basis in a general discussion on what constitutes "objectivity" in everyday use. We assume the outside world exists when we do science, and once we assume such a thing there's little reason to assume we interpret it wrongly wholly wrongly (outside of things we know are illusions created by the brain, such as colours).

That definition is never used in eveyday life outside of descartes meditations and emmanuel kants critique of pure reason.

> matter objectively exists

there are two categories

QUANTA (AND) QUALIA

QUANTA is empirically demonstrable and or logically-necessary (or what you might call "material reality") = emotionally meaningless

QUALIA is personal, experiential, qualitative, GNOSTIC, unfalsifiable, qualitative = emotionally meaningful

everything humans consider "important" is QUALIA

AXIOLOGY = QUALIA

This essentially just became an argument for solipsism. You just picked a (debateable) definition which says that things that happen in the mind are subjective with no elaboration or proof as to why. Your argument is based on the premise that our experience of reality is not in alignment with what reality actually looks like, making our observations incorrect. How else could our experience be subjective if not for the fact that we misread or miss-experience the real reality? What's subjective? What colours we see? Whether or not matter exists? assuming materialism, matter objectively exists (the hadron collider proves it). You would have to prove materialism incorrect, or that our senses misread the outside world to a massively skewing degree for this to be fully fleshed out in my eyes.

I'm flattered by your attention.

Yeah I think I'm gonna pass on this one. Sorry for all the questions.

I'm gonna think about it for a day or two and if no one else accepts it, I probably will

And furthermore, I guarantee I will give you at least 1 point for participation.

So, if I fail to present an argument that you personally consider convincing, all you have to do to "win" the debate is to NOT grant me any points.

You really can't lose.

This is not some sort of trick.

I'm willing to openly negotiate based any definition you personally prefer.

That's why simply saying "science" isn't objective is just a bit too broad

The scientific method is a construction by people. But the findings of that method aren't dependent on the personal feelings of the people employing the method.

Feel free to propose your own personally preferred definition of "the methodologies of science".

Well, the scientific enterprise and the findings of science are pretty fundamentally different in the context of this topic. I would be willing to accept a debate titled "the findings of science are not objective." But the methodologies necessitate humans to enact them to arrive at objective conclusions.

Feel free to propose your own personally preferred definition of "science".

The broadness comes from the definition of the word science meaning different things here not from the word objective

Feel free to propose your own personally preferred definition of "objective".

So the resolution could be restated as: Science is dependent on the mind for existence/Science is not influenced by persona; feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts?

Yeah, too broad, think I'll pass.

Also, the way you want people to vote, yeah I'm not for that, no offence but I don't trust you to be objective about that...

See what I did there?

(1) Proposed definition: "science"

(s.1) "Science is systematic knowledge acquired by the application of logic to observation."[2]

Please let me know if you provisionally agree to allow common google.com definitions of words contained within these definitions.

(2) Proposed definition: "objective"

Objective: (o.1) (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. (AND/OR) not dependent on the mind for existence; actual.[3]

(o.1a) antonyms: biased, partial, prejudiced[3]
(o.1b) antonyms: subjective[3]

For contrast, I would like to present a common definition of "subjective":

(IFF) (sj.1) Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. (AND/OR) dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence.[8]

(sj.1a) antonyms: objective[8]

And (IFF) "subjective" is an antonym of "objective" (THEN) "objective" can not be "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. (AND/OR) dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence."[8]

Hmm, I don't see a definition of objective here....

Mmm, seems a little too broad

Both.

↓↓↓

I'm interested but are you saying that the scientific enterprise doesn't exist without humans , or that the findings of science aren't objective?